DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the reply filed on 02/26/2026. Claims 67-70, 73-82, and 85 are pending in this Action. Claims 1-66 had been previously cancelled.
Remark
In the response filed 02/26/2026, claims 67, 68, 73, 74, and 77-81 have been amended, claims 71, 72, 83, and 84 have been cancelled, and new claim 85 has been added.
Claim Objections
Claim 82 is missing from the list of claims. It is not clear what the status of claim 82 is. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner assume the status of the claim has not changed. In another word, the claim status is “Previously Presented.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to 35 USC 101 rejection:
The applicant broadly asserts that the claims “are currently amended to define limitations that explicitly prevent the limitations of the claims from being performed as a mental process. The claims define an interaction between computing components that facilitate conveyance of data in a manner that improves the handling of the data” without providing any evidence or details.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner holds that the limitations of claims (e.g., independent claims 67 and 85) are recited at a high-level of generality without providing enough “technical details” on how to perform the functions and achieve result. Thus, given the claims their broadest and reasonable interpretation, the steps of including privacy indication into data, determine a data management action according to the privacy indication, performing the action, and/or looking up the data management action according to the privacy indication are process that could be performed mentally. As such, a process that could be a performed mentally is not able to improve a functioning of a computer or other technology.
Furthermore, the additional limitations of sending data by a first network function over a network and receiving data by a second network function are additional limitations that are considered to be insignificant extra solution and/or well-understood, conventional and routine activity of sending and/or receiving data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). This feature is recited at a high level of generality and is not sufficient to show any improvement in the functioning of a computer.
The courts have found that certain limitations are not enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception such as
adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g));”
See MPEP 2106.05(1)(A).
In conclusion, based on above reasoning and explanation, the rejection of claims 67-70, 73-82, and 85 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract idea are maintained.
With respect to 35 USC 102/103 rejection:
Applicant's arguments with respect to newly amended claims that Zhang does not teach the limitations of the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection over the new combination of Nair et al., US 2018/0324585 in view of Lu, CN 201811182952 A. The Zhang reference is no longer used in the rejection of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 67-70, 73-82, and 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas.
Step 1:
Claims 67-70, 73-82, and 85 are directed to a method or apparatus which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Regarding claim 67,
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claim 67 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites the steps of:
including, by the first network function, in the data, for each of the plurality of data portions, a privacy indication for the data portion that indicates a privacy level of data within the data portion; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation (BRI), it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person can mentally and manually include an indication (e.g., a label) of privacy to data]
for each data portion, determining by the second network function and from the privacy indication for the respective data portion, a data management action to take for the respective data portion; [recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person can mentally and manually determine an action according to the privacy indication]
performing, by the second network function, the at least one data management action in accordance with the privacy indication of the data portion; [recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person can mentally and manually perform an action according to privacy indication]
wherein determining a data management action comprises looking up, by the second network function, the data management action corresponding to the privacy indication... [recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person can mentally and manually determine an action by looking up for a proper action in list of actions]
The above-mentioned step is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In claim 67, the additional limitations of “sending…data to a second apparatus… the data comprising a plurality of data portions data portion, the sending comprising” and “receiving, by the second network function, the data” recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, they could be considered as insignificant extra solution activities of sending and receiving data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, claim 67 recites generic computer components (e.g., a first apparatus comprising processing circuitry and memory and executing a first network function, a second apparatus comprising processing circuitry and memory and executing a second network function, and a network repository) to implement the steps of the invention. Said generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and considered to be insignificant extra solution activities.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
Claim 67 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In claim 67 the additional limitations of “sending…data to a second apparatus… the data comprising a plurality of data portions data portion, the sending comprising” and “receiving, by the second network function, the data” recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, they could be considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of sending and receiving data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, claim 67 recites generic computer components (e.g., a first apparatus comprising processing circuitry and memory and executing a first network function, a second apparatus comprising processing circuitry and memory and executing a second network function, and a network repository) to implement the steps of the invention. Said generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and considered to be insignificant extra solution activities. Therefore, claim 67 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 68-70, 73-81,
the dependent claims also lack additional elements that sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than abstract idea found in the independent claims.
The dependent claims additional steps for generic computer functions of “store data”, “forwarding data”, and/or “performing another function”, “receiving indication/data”, “repository network function”, “ sending indication/data”, and/or “JSON…arrays” which are considered to be insignificant extra solution and/or well-understood routine computer routines of receiving and storing data failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea.
The dependent claims such claims 74 and 81 further recite the additional step for “determining…” that could be performed mentally failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea.
Furthermore, the dependent claims (such as claims 68, 75, 77, and 78) include limitations that are merely non-functional descriptive material that do not further add to the recited abstract idea.
Regarding claim 82,
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claim 82 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites the steps of:
for each data portion, performing, by the second network function, data management in accordance with the data management category of the data portion [recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, it constitutes a concept which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person (i.e., a developer or network administrator) can manually perform data management (e.g., deleting and/or modifying data) based on a criterion]
The above-mentioned step is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 82 recites the additional limitations of “receiving, by the second network function, data from a first network function, the data comprising at least one data portion and, for each of at least one of the at least one data portion, a data management category for the data portion” which could be considered as an insignificant extra pre-solution activity of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
Claim 82 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 82 recites the additional limitations of “receiving, by the second network function, data from a first network function, the data comprising at least one data portion and, for each of at least one of the at least one data portion, a data management category for the data portion” which could be considered as an insignificant well-understood and conventional computer activity of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 85,
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claim 85 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites the steps of:
including, by the first network function, in the data, for each of the-plurality of data portions a privacy indication for the data portion that indicates a privacy level of data within the data portion; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation (BRI), it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person can mentally and manually include an indication (e.g., a label) of privacy to data]
for each data portion, determine by the second network function and from the privacy indication for the respective data portion, a data management action to take for the respective data portion; [recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person can mentally and manually determine an action according to the privacy indication]
perform the at least one data management action in accordance with the privacy indication of the data portion. [recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person can mentally and manually perform an action according to privacy indication]
The above-mentioned step is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In claim 85, the additional limitations of “the first network function to: send data comprising a plurality of data portions to the second network function,” and “the second network function programmed to: receive the data;” recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, they could be considered as insignificant extra solution activities of sending and receiving data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, claim 85 recites generic computer components (e.g., a network
comprising first apparatus comprising processing circuitry and memory and executing a first network function and second apparatus comprising processing circuitry and memory and executing a second network function) to implement the steps of the invention. Said generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and considered to be insignificant extra solution activities.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
Claim 85 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In claim 85 the additional limitations of “the first network function to: send data comprising a plurality of data portions to the second network function,” and “the second network function programmed to: receive the data;” recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, they could be considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of sending and receiving data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, claim 85 recites generic computer components (e.g., a network comprising first apparatus comprising processing circuitry and memory and executing a first network function and second apparatus comprising processing circuitry and memory and executing a second network function) to implement the steps of the invention. Said generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and considered to be insignificant extra solution activities. Therefore, claim 85 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 82 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang, US 2021/0286896.
Zhang discloses a method of data management in a second network function, the method comprising:
receiving, by the second network function, data from a first network function, the data comprising at least one data portion and, for each of at least one of the at least one data portion, a data management category for the data portion (See Zhang: at least para 6, 26, 44, 51, 55, 93-100, and 110, receiving, at a second network function, collected data includes data indicating private information (i.e., a data management category) from a first network function); and
for each data portion, performing, by the second network function, data
management in accordance with the data management category of the data
portion (See Zhang: at least para 8, 26, 42, 44, 55, and 126, performing de-privatization of data at the second network function).
Claim 85 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nair et al., US 2018/0324585 (Nair, hereafter).
Nair discloses a network comprising first apparatus comprising processing circuitry and memory and executing a first network function and second apparatus comprising processing circuitry and memory and executing a second network function (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 9-11);
the first network function programmed to:
send data comprising a plurality of data portions to the second network function, the sending comprising including, by the first network function, in the data, for each of the-plurality of data portions a privacy indication for the data portion that indicates a privacy level of data within the data portion; (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 9-13, 41, and 42, sending a message to a second network function by a first network function, wherein a first function adds a privacy indicator to the message);
the second network function programmed to: receive the data (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 15-16, 54);
for each data portion, determine by the second network function and from the privacy indication for the respective data portion, a data management action to take for the respective data portion; (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 15-16, 40, and 54, determining by a receiving function or element privacy features and
processes for the message with the privacy indicator); and
perform the at least one data management action in accordance with the privacy indication of the data portion (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 15-16, 40, and 54, determining by a receiving function or element privacy features and processes for the message with the privacy indicator).
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, 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.
Claims 67, 68, 70, 73-75, and 77-81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al., US 2018/0324585 in view of Lu, CN 201811182952 A.
Regarding claim 67,
Nair discloses a method comprising:
sending, by a first apparatus comprising processing circuitry and memory and executing a first network function, data to a second apparatus comprising processing circuitry and memory and executing a second network function, the data comprising a plurality of data portions (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 9-11), the sending comprising:
including, by the first network function, in the data, for each of the plurality of data portions, a privacy indication for the data portion that indicates a privacy level of data within the data portion (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 9-13, 41, and 42, adding a privacy indicator to a message by a first function (of a 5G UE for example) that is sent to another network function);
receiving, by the second network function, the data (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 15-16, 54);
for each data portion, determining by the second network function and from the privacy indication for the respective data portion, a data management action to take for the respective data portion (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 15-16, 40, and 54, determining by a receiving function or element privacy features and processes for the message with the privacy indicator); and
performing, by the second network function, the at least one data management action in accordance with the privacy indication of the data portion (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 15-16, 40, and 54, determining by a receiving function or element privacy features and processes for the message with the privacy indicator).
Although, Nair discloses determining processing of a message based on privacy features associated with a privacy indicator, Nair does not explicitly teach wherein determining a data management action comprises looking up, by the second network function, the data management action corresponding to the privacy indication in a network repository.
On the other hand, Lu discloses determining a processing action corresponding to a privacy category in a memory (See LU: at least highlighted section of translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of Nair with Lu’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve functionality and efficiency of the method by selecting a relevant privacy action from the predetermined actions based on the privacy indication and feature.
Regarding claim 68,
the combination of Nair and Lu discloses wherein the privacy indication for a data portion indicates one or more data management actions for the data portion by the second network function (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 15-16, 40, and 54 and LU: at least highlighted section of translation).
Regarding claim 70,
the combination of Nair and Lu discloses wherein the one or more data management actions for a data portion by the second network function comprise whether or not to forward the data portion to a third network function, anonymize the data portion, encrypt the data portion and/or perform another operation on the data portion (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 30, 42, and 54, forwarding or encrypting data).
Regarding claim 73,
the combination of Nair and Lu discloses sending an indication of the one or more data management actions for each category to a repository network function (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 9-16, 40-42, and 54).
Regarding claim 74,
the combination of Nair and Lu discloses determining one or more updated
data management actions for at least one category, and sending an indication of
the one or more updated data management actions to the repository network function (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 9-16, 40-42, and 54).
Regarding claim 75,
the combination of Nair and Lu discloses wherein each data portion comprises one or more Information Elements (IEs) (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 9-16, 40-42, and 54).
Regarding claim 77,
the combination of Nair and Lu discloses wherein the data comprises a data structure defined by a data structure schema, and wherein the indication of the data management category for the data portion is not defined in the schema (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 9-16, 40-42, and 54).
Regarding claim 78,
the combination of Nair and Lu discloses wherein the privacy indication for each data portion comprises a respective one of a plurality of categories (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 15-16, 40, and 54 and LU: at least highlighted section of translation).
Regarding claim 79,
the combination of Nair and Lu discloses receiving an indication of the respective privacy indication of at least one data portion from the network repository (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 15-16, 40, and 54 and LU: at least highlighted section of translation).
Regarding claim 80,
the combination of Nair and Lu discloses sending an indication of the
respective privacy indication for at least one data portion to the network repository (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 15-16, 40, and 54 and LU: at least highlighted section of translation).
Regarding claim 81,
the combination of Nair and Lu discloses determining one or more updated privacy indications for at least one data portion, and sending an indication of the one or more updated privacy indications for at least one data portion to the network repository (See Nair: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 15-16, 40, and 54 and LU: at least highlighted section of translation).
Claim 69 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al., US 2018/0324585 in view of Lu, CN 201811182952 A and further in view of Wilson, US 2017/0177268.
The combination of Nair and Lu discloses the limitations as stated above. However, it does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more data management actions for a data portion by the second network function comprise whether or not to store the data portion.
On the other hand, Wilson discloses an indicator in data indicates to whether
data is stored in a second storage device (See Wilson: at least para 21 and Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Nair and Lu with Wilson’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve functionality and data security of the method by determining whether to store private data in a storage or not.
Claim 76 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al., US 2018/0324585 in view of Lu, CN 201811182952 A and further in view of Sapra et al., US 2022/0286949 (Sapra, hereafter).
The combination of Nair and Lu discloses each data portion comprises one or more JSON objects, arrays, properties and/or key-value pairs (See Zhang: at least para 6, 26, 44, 51, 55, 93-100, and 110, properties). However, it does not explicitly teach wherein the data comprises a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) data structure.
On the other hand, Sapra discloses JSON data structure associated with a network function (See Sapra: at least para 216). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Nair and Lu with Sapra’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve secure transmission of data using JSON.
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.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARES JAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a-5:00p.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. 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.
/Hares Jami/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
06/18/2026
Prosecution Insights