DETAILED 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/22/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 10-17 in Figure 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office Action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the wording “wherein the at least one condition to cause the first network function to send a combined notification of the at least one event when the at least one condition is satisfied” appears as though it should be “wherein the at least one condition causes the first network function to send a combined notification of the at least one event when the at least one condition is satisfied”, where “causes” replaces “to cause”. 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 1, 2, 5-10, 19, and 23 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 claim(s) contains 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation, "determine, based on the request received from the second network function, one or more data sources capable of determining a respective occurrence of the at least one event, wherein the one or more data sources are unaware of the at least one condition" in combination with the remainder of the claim, which discloses an apparatus having a memory and computer program code of a first network function that causes the apparatus to performs the steps of claim 1, introduces new matter because the specification of the present application fails to disclose, suggest, or otherwise support this limitation. More specifically, Applicant’s specification (Figure 7 and paragraphs 0155-0168) discloses a messaging framework may perform each of the steps of Applicant’s claim 1, except for the determining step. Paragraph 0157 clearly discloses that “the DCCF determines a Data Source that can provide the requested data”. Applicant’s specification does not disclose the DCCF and the messaging framework being the same apparatus and actually references the DCCF as a third network function (paragraph 0124) while the message framework is referred to as a first network function (paragraph 0124). Therefore, although claim 1 indicates that the steps are all performed by the same apparatus, Applicant’s specification does not disclose a single apparatus that performs all of the steps.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation, "determining, based on the request received from the second network function, one or more data sources capable of determining a respective occurrence of the at least one event, wherein the one or more data sources are unaware of the at least one condition" in combination with the remainder of the claim, which discloses a method of a first network function comprising the steps of claim 19, introduces new matter because the specification of the present application fails to disclose, suggest, or otherwise support this limitation. More specifically, Applicant’s specification (Figure 7 and paragraphs 0155-0168) discloses a messaging framework may perform each of the steps of Applicant’s claim 19, except for the determining step. Paragraph 0157 clearly discloses that “the DCCF determines a Data Source that can provide the requested data”. Applicant’s specification does not disclose the DCCF and the messaging framework being the same apparatus and actually references the DCCF as a third network function (paragraph 0124) while the message framework is referred to as a first network function (paragraph 0124). Therefore, although claim 19 indicates that the steps are all performed by the same apparatus, Applicant’s specification does not disclose a single apparatus that performs all of the steps.
Claims 2, 5-10, and 23 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12, 14-18, 20, and 24 are allowed, subject to correction of the minor informalities.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Considering claims 11 and 20, the best prior art found during the prosecution of the present application, Li et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0252813 A1) and Boddu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0297890 A1), fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of wherein each respective occurrence was determined by one or more data sources that are unaware of the at least one condition in combination with and in the context of all of the other limitations in claims 11 and 20.
Claims 12, 14-18, and 24 are also allowed by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to MARK G. PANNELL whose telephone number is (303) 297-4245. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 3:00 pm (Mountain Time).
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on (571) 272-7915. 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.
/Mark G. Pannell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642