DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Amendment filed on 06/22/2026. Claims 1, 17, 19, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 07/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (pg. 10-15), filed on 06/22/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds of rejection being used in the current rejection.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 20, “one or more the first analytics notification” should be -- one or more of the first analytics notification -- (line 17).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 are rejected 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.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 19 and 20), the claim recites “one or more of: the one or more analytics outputs for the analytics ID, and for the analytics ID and to determine …” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear as to exactly what “one or more of:” refers to just “one or more of analytics outputs” or also other subsequent components. Overall, the entire limitation appears unsound, especially with respect to “, and for the analytics ID and”, which also impacts whether “to determine the inference rollback actions and/or the training rollback action” is interpreted to be part of the alternative language and potentially not carry patentable weight. The phrases “the inference rollback action” and “the training rollback action” also lack antecedent basis. Examiner recommends Applicant to restructure the limitation in order to clearly overcome the rejection.
Regarding claims 2-18, which claim dependency from claim 1, they are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2021/0224365 A1, hereinafter “Huang”) in view of Yao et al. (US 2021/0021494 A1, hereinafter “Yao”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 19 and 20), Huang discloses:
A method comprising:
obtaining an indication with information to activate a tracing of one or more analytics outputs for at least one of an analytics identifier (ID) and a tracing of the analytics ID (receiving request for configuring tracking rule to track event with unique identifier, Huang: [0032], [0037]); and
providing a notification related to the analytics ID when at least one output for the analytics ID is unstable or when the analytics ID is unstable, wherein the notification comprises one or more of: a first analytics notification for the at least one unstable analytics output for the analytics ID, a second analytics notification for the analytics ID; a first inference notification for the at least one unstable analytics output for the analytics ID; a second inference notification for the analytics ID; a first training notification for the at least one unstable analytics output for the analytics ID; a second training notification for the analytics ID; wherein one or more the first analytics notification and the second analytics notification is provided to a network analytics consumer entity, a network analytics inference entity, or a network analytics training entity; where one or more of the first inference notification and the second inference notification is provided to the network analytics inference entity; where one or more of the first training notification and the second training notification is provided to the network analytics training entity (sending tracking information associated with negative result of tracked event to analytics collection engine, Huang: [0054], [0058]); and
generating analytics tracing information for one or more of: the one or more analytics outputs for the analytics ID, and for the analytics ID and to determine the inference rollback action and/or the training rollback action based on the analytics tracing information (generating tracking information including positive or negative result of tracked event with unique identifier, Huang: [0032], [0054], [0058])
Huang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more analytics use trained machine learning models.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yao teaches:
wherein the one or more analytics use trained machine learning models (analytic data using trained ML model, Yao: [0055]-[0058]).
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 Huang in view of Suthar in order to further modify the method of tracking and providing event analytics information from the teachings of Huang with the method of providing analytics using trained ML model from the teachings of Suthar.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have improved network performance and efficiency (Yao: [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Huang-Yao further discloses:
creating analytics tracing information associated with the analytics ID (preprocessing recorded data associated with tracked event, Huang: [0072], [0073]).
Regarding claim 3, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Huang-Yao further discloses:
where the analytics tracing information associated with the analytics ID comprises an analytics tracing data structure (ATDS) (preprocessing recorded data associated with tracked event based on data preprocessing strategy, Huang: [0072], [0073]).
Regarding claim 4, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Huang-Yao further discloses:
where the ATDS comprise an ATDS of the analytics ID or an ATDS for the analytics ID (preprocessing recorded data associated with tracked event based on data preprocessing strategy, Huang: [0072], [0073]).
Regarding claim 5, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Huang-Yao further discloses:
where the ATDS is associated to a time analytics tracing information record for the analytics ID (preprocessing recorded data including time information of tracked event, Huang: [0072], [0073]).
Regarding claim 6, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Huang-Yao further discloses:
where the ATDS comprises a historical set of ADTS records (determining statistical data based on recorded data associated with tracked event, Huang: [0072], [0073]).
Regarding claim 7, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Huang-Yao further discloses:
where the ATDS comprises an ATDS record indicating a network state at a given point in time when using a given analytics (determining statistical data related to status at specific time point of tracked event, Huang: [0072], [0073]).
Regarding claim 8, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Huang-Yao further discloses:
where the given analytics comprises one or more of: the analytics ID, an analytics type, or one or more analytics outputs (recorded data associated with tracked event with unique identifier, Huang: [0032], [0072], [0073]).
Regarding claim 9, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Huang-Yao further discloses:
where the notification comprises one or more information associated with one or more of: an unstable analytics ID, an unstable analytics output associated with the analytics ID (sending tracking information associated with negative result of tracked event, Huang: [0054], [0058]).
Regarding claim 10, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Huang-Yao further discloses:
where the notification comprises one or more of: an ATDS record with the analytics inference configuration information (AICI) and/or analytics training configuration information (ATCI) for the analytics ID of the ATDS record that has been considered as the unstable analytics ID; a parameter such as tuple with the identification of the analytics ID and/or analytics output and a flag, where this flag denotes that there is a problem (or an error) with one or more of the analytics ID and output(s) (sending tracking information including negative result of tracked event with unique identifier, Huang: [0032], [0054], [0058]).
Regarding claim 11, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Huang-Yao further discloses:
where the flag comprises one or more of: unstable analytics, halt analytics usage, invalid analytics, or temporary invalid analytics (sending tracking information including negative result of tracked event, Huang: [0054], [0058]).
Regarding claim 12, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Huang-Yao further discloses:
where the unstable analytics ID indicates that there is a problem (and/or an error) with the analytics ID and/or analytics outputs (negative result of tracked event, Huang: [0054], [0058]).
Regarding claim 14, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Huang-Yao further discloses:
tracing the one or more analytics outputs for the analytics ID and/or tracing the analytics ID, based on the indication with the information to activate the tracing (receiving request for configuring tracking rule to track event with unique identifier, Huang: [0032], [0037]); and
provide the notification based on one or more of the tracing of the one or more analytics outputs for the analytics ID, and the analytics ID (sending tracking information associated with tracked event, Huang: [0054], [0058]).
Regarding claim 15, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Huang-Yao further discloses:
receiving a status notification, wherein the status notification comprises at least one of a status of the inference action for the network analytics inference entity and a status of the training action for the network analytics training entity (receiving alert associated with abnormal status of tracking information at analytics collection engine, Huang: [0054], [0058]).
Regarding claim 16, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Huang-Yao further discloses:
providing at least one of the following: an analytics status notification indicating at least one of that the one or more analytics outputs for the analytics ID are stable and that the analytics ID is stable; a confirmation that the at least one unstable analytics output for the analytics ID is unstable; an inference tracing activation indication with information to activate a tracing of an inference configuration about one or more of: at least one of the one or more analytics outputs for the analytics ID, and the analytics ID; a training tracing activation indication with information to activate a tracing of a training configuration about one or more of: at least one of the one or more analytics outputs for the analytics ID, and the analytics ID (sending tracking information including positive or negative result of tracked event, Huang: [0054], [0058]).
Regarding claim 17, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Huang-Yao further discloses:
wherein the analytics tracing information comprises one or more of the following: the analytics ID, an association of the analytics ID to the one or more analytics outputs for the analytics ID, one or more quality indications about one or more of: at least one of the one or more analytics outputs for the analytics ID and the analytics ID, an inference configuration about the analytics ID and/or about the one or more analytics outputs for the analytics ID, a training configuration about the analytics ID and/or about the one or more analytics outputs for the analytics ID (generating tracking information including positive or negative result of tracked event with unique identifier, Huang: [0032], [0054], [0058]).
Regarding claim 18, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above.
Huang-Yao further discloses:
wherein the analytics tracing information further comprises at least one of a status of the inference action, a status of the training action, one or more inference actions, and one or more training actions associated with the analytics ID and/or associated with one or more analytics outputs for the analytics ID (tracking information including positive or negative result of tracked event with unique identifier, Huang: [0032], [0054], [0058]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2021/0224365 A1) in view of Yao (US 2021/0021494 A1) further in view of Suthar et al. (US 2020/0296603 A1, hereinafter “Suthar”).
Regarding claim 13, Huang-Yao teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Huang-Yao does not explicitly disclose:
where the method is applied to a network data analytics function (NWDAF) containing analytics logical function (AnLF).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Suthar teaches:
where the method is applied to a network data analytics function (NWDAF) containing analytics logical function (AnLF) (NWDAF containing AnLF monitoring events and providing network analytics information, Suthar: [0035]).
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 Huang-Yao in view of Suthar in order to further modify the method of tracking and providing event analytics information from the combined teachings of Huang-Yao with the method of NWDAF monitoring and providing network event analytics information from the teachings of Suthar.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have reduced operational costs (Suthar: [0040]).
Conclusion
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.
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm EST.
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, Glenton B. Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights