DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states (see page 6 of the Remarks) “Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims are not directed to a fundamental economic practice or a purely commercial arrangement. Rather, the claims are directed to charging record generation and processing within a wireless communication network architecture to enable network-mediated accounting for data provision and/or data usage including, in several dependent claims, sensing measurement data and identifiers derived from sensed objects.”
However, it is the understanding of the Examiner that the independent claim(s) simply recite a series of limitations including: “receiving a charging data request…”; “generating a charging data record in response to receiving the charging data request…”; and “the charging data record comprises a data identifier of data provided by a data providing apparatus…”. These limitations amount to nothing more than the abstract idea of organizing human activity which includes interactions such as sales activities (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section II). The dependent claims may recite sensing measurement data, but this recitation is simply reciting how the data is collected and does not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea of organizing human activity. It is further the understanding of the Examiner that although the abstract idea of performing “sales activities” is performed within a wireless communication network architecture, the applicant is merely claiming the concept of sales activities such as billing being performed using a computer as a tool to perform the concept (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Section III C “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite A Mental Process”). Therefore, it is the understanding of the Examiner that since the claim merely recites performing the abstract idea of “sales activities” (such as billing) in a computing environment, the claim is still directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The Applicant further states (see page 7 of the Remarks) “Even assuming arguendo that some portion of the claims involve "charging" in an economic sense, the claims recite a network-implemented computing architecture and workflow that apply any such concept in a practical application, including, for example:
A "network node" in a "wireless communication network" that generates a charging data record responsive to a charging data request (claims 7, 16, 17), and/or
An "information processing system" including a "network node" and a "billing domain," where the "network node" transmits the generated charging data record to the "billing domain" and the "billing domain" performs demanding or paying processing based on the generated charging data (claim 1).
This is not merely "performing billing on a computer." The claims tie the record generation and downstream processing to particular network elements and their interactions (network node billing domain), including data identifiers of network-provided data (and, in certain claims, sensing-related data identifiers). That is a concrete application in network operations/telecommunications charging rather than an abstract business method untethered to implementation.”
As disclosed above, it the understanding of the Examiner that although the abstract idea of performing “sales activities” is performed within a wireless communication network architecture including network nodes and a billing domain, the applicant is merely claiming the concept of sales activities such as billing being performed in a computer environment or using a computer as a tool to perform the concept which is still deemed non-statutory (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Section III C “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite A Mental Process”).
The Applicant also states (see page 7 of the Remarks) “The Office Action states that the "additional generic computer elements do not add meaningful limitations." Applicant respectfully disagrees because the claims require (i) a "network node" configuring a wireless communication network, (ii) generation of a "charging data record" responsive to a request, and (iii) in claim 1, interaction with a "billing domain" that receives the charging data record and performs demanding/paying processing based on it. These are not mere generic "computer elements" appended to an otherwise standalone commercial idea. Instead, they define the operational context and tie the claimed subject matter to telecommunications/network charging infrastructure. For at least the reasons above, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 101 rejections.”
The additional generic computer elements (billing domain, first processor, second processor of claim 1) do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because the additional computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer system (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Section III C “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite A Mental Process”). Furthermore, the recited “data identifier” simply identifies the sales interaction and does not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. Therefore, based on the above disclosure, it is the understanding of the Examiner that the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity, which includes sales interactions/activities, which is deemed non-statutory subject matter.
On page 9 of the Remarks, the Applicant states “Livanos's "aggregation ID" does not identify the "data indicative of a network resource usage event of a UE" itself. Rather, the aggregation ID merely identifies the aggregation unit to which such data correspond, i.e., indicates which UE group is associated with the data. In this respect, the aggregation ID is conceptually closer to "an identifier of the data providing apparatus" than to the claimed "data identifier." In the present application, as expressly disclosed in claim 8 and paragraph [0014], "a data identifier" and "an identifier of the data providing apparatus" are clearly distinguished from one another.”
The Examiner agrees that the “aggregation ID” disclosed in Livanos et al. (US 2020/0412880) is conceptually closer to an identifier of the data providing apparatus rather than to the claimed “data identifier”. However, Livanos further discloses the data fields of the charging data record include a data identifier (record type as disclosed in section 0053) which identifies the type of data (individual or group) in the record. Therefore, it is the understanding of the Examiner that Livanos et al. does in fact disclose a “data identifier” as recited in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) simply recite a series of limitations including: “receiving a charging data request…”; “generating a charging data record in response to receiving the charging data request…”; and “the charging data record comprises a data identifier of data provided by a data providing apparatus…”. These limitations amount to nothing more than the abstract idea of organizing human activity which includes interactions such as sales activities (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section II). It is the understanding of the Examiner that the limitations “receiving a charging data request…” and “generating a charging data record…” amount to nothing more than organizing a sales interaction between a provider of a service and a customer which is deemed non-statutory subject matter (organizing human activity). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional generic computer elements (billing domain, first processor, second processor of claim 1) do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because the additional computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer system. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) discloses abstract ideas performed on a computer or in a computer environment are still considered an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited “data identifier” simply identifies the sales interaction (charging data record) and does not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. Therefore, it is the understanding of the Examiner that the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity, which includes sales interactions, which is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Livanos et al. (previously cited in Office Action 4/28/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Livanos et al. discloses an information processing system, comprising:
a network node (see Figs. 3A and B, block 302); and
a billing domain (see Figs. 3A and 3B, block 152), wherein:
the network node comprises a first processor (CDF 312 as disclosed in sections 0036-0038) configured to execute
receiving a charging data request (as disclosed in section 0036),
generating a charging data record (as disclosed in section 0036) in response to receiving the charging data request, and
transmitting the charging data record to the billing domain (for receipt and processing as disclosed in section 0036),
the billing domain (BD 152) comprises a second processor configured to execute
processing of receiving the charging data record, and
demanding processing or paying processing (by processing the CDR for billing a customer and generating a billing document as disclosed in sections 0052-0056) based on the charging data record, and
the charging data record comprises a data identifier (record type as disclosed in section 0053) of data provided by a data providing apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Livanos et al. discloses wherein the generating the charging data record comprises:
generating a first charging data record (data record for first aggregation ID as disclosed in sections 0047-0048) including the data identifier (record type as disclosed in section 0053) of the data provided by the data providing apparatus and an identifier (first group ID as discloses in section 0047) of the data providing apparatus; and
generating a second charging data record (data record for second aggregation ID as disclosed in section 0048) including a data identifier of data (record type as disclosed in section 0053) used by a data using apparatus.
Regarding claim 3, Livanos et al. discloses wherein the second charging data record further comprises an identifier of the data using apparatus (by identification of the number of events generated/delivered to the data using apparatus as disclosed in section 0053).
Regarding claim 4, Livanos et al. discloses the second processor of the billing domain is configured to execute paying processing for a user (by processing the CDR for billing a customer/user and generating a billing document as disclosed in sections 0052-0056) of the data providing apparatus.
Regarding claim 7, Livanos et al. discloses a network node (see Figs. 3A and B, block 302) that configures a wireless communication network, comprising a processor (CDF 312 as disclosed in sections 0036-0038) configured to:
receive a charging data request (as disclosed in section 0036); and
generate a charging data record (as disclosed in section 0036) in response to receiving the charging data request, wherein the charging data record comprises a data identifier of data (record type as disclosed in section 0053) provided by a data providing apparatus.
Regarding claim 8, Livanos et al. discloses wherein the generating the charging data record comprises:
generating a first charging data record (data record for first aggregation ID as disclosed in sections 0047-0048) including the data identifier (record type as disclosed in section 0053) of the data provided by the data providing apparatus and an identifier (first group ID as discloses in section 0047) of the data providing apparatus; and
generating a second charging data record (data record for second aggregation ID as disclosed in section 0048) including a data identifier of data (record type as disclosed in section 0053) used by a data using apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, Livanos et al. discloses wherein the second charging data record further comprises an identifier of the data using apparatus (by identification of the number of events generated/delivered to the data using apparatus as disclosed in section 0053).
Regarding claim 10, Livanos et al. discloses the data is sensing data obtained by performing sensing measurement (monitored event triggered aggregation (measurement) as disclosed in section 0045) by the data providing apparatus.
Regarding claim 11, Livanos et al. discloses the data identifier data (record type as disclosed in section 0053) is an identifier of an object (individual or aggregate chargeable event as disclosed in sections 0057-0058) specified from the sensing data.
Regarding claim 15, Livanos et al. discloses the processor is configured to transmit the charging data record to a billing domain regularly (as disclosed or in response to a request as disclosed in section 0061).
Regarding claim 16, the claimed method includes limitations corresponding to the above rejection of claim 7, the rejection of which is applicable hereto.
Regarding claim 17, Livanos et al. disclose s a non-transitory storage medium (see section 0072) to execute the limitations of claim 7, the rejection of which is applicable hereto.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jardon (US 2021/0377703) also discloses an identifier of data in a charging data record.
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS B ODOM whose telephone number is (571)272-3046. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Hannah S Wang can be reached at (571)-272-9018. 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.
/CURTIS B ODOM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 September 28, 2026
