DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 02/10/2026.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-20, 23, and 25 are pending for Examination.
Claims 3, 5-6, 8, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 9, 11, 21-22, 24, and 26-28 have been cancelled.
Rejections Under §112
Claims 3, 5-7, 10, 16, 18-20, and 23 were rejected based on §112(b) as being indefinite in the previous Office Action. These rejections are withdrawn herewith as Applicant has appropriately amended (or canceled) its claims to obviate each of the corresponding §112 rejections.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 12, 14, and 25, Applicant argues that Hong does not anticipate claim 1 (nor any of independent claims 12, 14, and 25) because Hong fails to disclose the critical limitation of the target network analytics that is “transferred from the source network function entity to the target network function entity,” arguing that “[t]he cited passages of Hong describe model acquisition and service request execution, not transfer/migration of an analytics instance between entities.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 14.
For context, claim 1 recites (w/acronym usage applied for readability), the following:
a target network function entity (NFE),
i. acquiring model information of a target network analytics (TNA) from a source NFE,
ii. using the model information to acquire a TNA model, and
iii. executing a NA using the model to obtain some type of result of the TNA.
wherein the TNA is transferred from a source NFE to the target NFE, presumably as part of the acquiring.
However, it is unclear if the acquired model of the TNA is intended to be equivalent to the transferred TNA, within the scope of claim 1, as both a model information of the TNA and the TNA are acquired/transferred from the same source NFE. The Examiner requests that Applicant provide an example from its original disclosure of what “network analytics” are intended to refer to in terms of some analytics data of a network, to provide context for a model using analytics information to result in some network improvement/benefit, i.e., a network improvement that is garnered through AI-modeling of what exactly? What is the problem being solved?
The Examiner notes that the claim terminology of Applicant’s independent claims is very broad in scope and will be interpreted accordingly under the Office’s Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard. In this regard, MPEP Ch. 2111: Claim Interpretation, recites in-part that: “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (See MPEP [R-10.2024] §2111.01, Item II).
In its response, Applicant argues that claim 1 describes a “core inventive concept,” “…pertain[ing] to the transfer or migration of an existing, specific network analytics instance/process from a source entity to a target entity,” and that “[i]t is not merely about a target entity initiating a new analytics task using a model obtained from elsewhere.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 11. Applicant also argues that Hong “…does not involve the transfer of a pre-existing, ongoing ‘network analytics’ from the source to the target,” noting that in Hong, “[t]he concept of transferring the analytics task itself is absent.” Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 12-13. However, the Examiner notes that none of independent claims 1, 12, 14, and 25 explicitly recite: migration of an existing specific network analytics instance/process, nor transferring pre-existing, ongoing network analytics or an analytics task, as argued by Applicant.
In response to Applicant's arguments that the reference, i.e., Hong, fails to show certain features of its invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., migration of an existing, specific network analytics instance/process, transfer of ongoing network analytics and an analytics task) are not even recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to the above-contested claim subject matter, Hong describes that its source NF/NWDAF entity can send, and a target NF/NWDAF entity can receive, model information of a desired model, of a target network analytics as part of a model request, i.e., S401 of Fig. 4 and S801 of Fig. 8, where model information can correspond to an AI model identifier/type, etc. of a desired AI model (paras. [0151], [0158]-[0159], and [0195]-[0196]; Table 1 and Figs. 2-3). This subject matter in Hong fairly reads on the claim limitation of “acquiring, by a target network function entity, model information of a target network analytics from a source network function entity.”
Hong also describes that its target NF/NWDAF entity can then acquire the desired AI model corresponding to the model information (i.e., AI model ID/type), in the request, which is provided by the source NF/NWDAF entity, i.e., S402 of Fig. 4 and S802-3 of Fig. 8 (paras. [0151] and [0196]-[0197]; Table 1 and Figs. 2-3). This subject matter in Hong fairly reads on the claim limitation of “acquiring, by the target network function entity, a model of the target network analytics according to the model information of the target network analytics.”
Hong also teaches that after acquisition of the corresponding AI model of the network analytics, its target NF/NWDAF entity can generate/execute corresponding analytics to obtain an analytics result by performing data analytics with the acquired AI model (paras. [0155], [0210], and [0265]; and S803-1 of Fig. 8). Again, this subject matter in Hong fairly reads on the claim limitation of “executing, by the target network function entity, a network analytics using the model to obtain an analytics result the target analytics result of the target network analytics.”
Hong further describes that its source NF/NWDAF entity can transfer network analytics to a target NF/NWDAF entity; alternatively stated, the Hong’s target NF/NWDAF can acquire network analytics from a source NF/NWDAF (paras. [0260]-[0263] and [0277]-[0279]; and S801-S802 of Fig. 8). This subject matter in Hong fairly reads on the contest claim limitation of “wherein the target network analytics is a network analytics transferred from the source network function entity to the target network function entity.”
The Examiner notes that Applicant recapitulates numerous portions of Hong in its remarks, and then describes distinctions between select teachings in Hong and subject matter related to its entire disclosure, including features which are not clearly recited in its pending independent claims. In this regard, the Examiner suggests Applicant amend features it chooses to argue as not being taught by the prior art into its independent claims, to more effectively advance prosecution. For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments are determined not to be persuasive and the rejection of claims 1, 12, 14, and 25 under §102(a)(2), based on Hong is maintained.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 14-15. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-19, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable in view of US PG Pub. 2022/0329493 A1, Hong et al. (hereinafter “Hong”).
With respect to claim 1, Hong teaches:
A transfer method for network analytics, applied to a target network function entity, the method comprising:
acquiring, by a target network function entity, model information of a target network analytics from a source network function entity (paras. [0151], [0158]-[0159], and [0195]-[0196]; Table 1 and Figs. 2-3 —a source NF/ NWDAF entity can send, and a target NF/NWDAF entity can receive, model information of a target network analytics as part of a model request, i.e., S401 of Fig. 4 and S801 of Fig. 8 —model information can correspond to an AI model identifier/type, etc.);
acquiring, by the target network function entity, a model of the target network analytics according to the model information of the target network analytics (paras. [0151] and [0196]-[0197]; Table 1 and Figs. 2-3 —the target NF/NWDAF entity can then acquire the model corresponding to the model information (i.e., AI model ID/type) provided by the source NF/NWDAF entity, i.e., S402 of Fig. 4 and S802-3 of Fig. 8);
executing, by the target network function entity, a network analytics using the model to obtain an analytics result of the target network analytics (paras. [0155], [0210], and [0265]; and S803-1 of Fig. 8 —after acquisition of the corresponding model of the network analytics, the target NF/NWDAF entity can generate/execute corresponding analytics to obtain an analytics result by performing data analytics for the acquired model),
wherein the target network analytics is a network analytics transferred from the source network function entity to the target network function entity (paras. [0260]-[0263]; and S801-S8021 Figs. 8 —the source NF/NWDAF entity can transfer the network analytics to the target NF/NWDAF entity).
With respect to claim 2, Hong teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the acquiring, by the target network function entity, model information of the target network analytics from the source network function entity comprises:
acquiring, by the target network function entity, the model information of the target network analytics from the source network function entity in a preparation process of a network analytics transfer (paras. [0261]-[0274]; and Table 1 —the model information, i.e., model ID/type, analytics results policy, etc., included with the consumer NF/NWDAF request can identify a corresponding model to effectuate a network analytics transfer between NF/NWDAF entities, as depicted in S803-S8033 of Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 3, Hong teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the model information of the target network analytics comprises at least one of the following: an address of a first model file, information of a first network function entity, wherein the first network function entity is configured to provide the model of target network analytics to the source network function entity (paras. [0054]-[0055], [0103]-[0104], and [0310]-[0311]; and S803-S8033 of Fig. 8 —model information of the target network analytics may correspond to a model owner address where the model file to be retrieved is stored —the term “and/or” is interpreted to be equivalent to the term “or,” applying the BRI standard —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons provided above in the: Claim Interpretation —Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 4, Hong teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the acquiring, by the target network function entity, model information of the target network analytics from the source network function entity comprises:
acquiring, by the target network function entity, an analytics context of the target network analytics from the source network function entity (paras. [0034]-[0039] and [0048]-[0049]; Table 1 and Fig. 8 — a source NF/NWDAF entity can send, and a target NF/NWDAF entity can receive, a request including analytics context information relating to: a model ID/type, model data association information, a model feedback policy, etc.),
wherein the analytics context comprises the model information of the target network analytics (paras. [0034]-[0039] and [0048]-[0049]; Table 1 and Fig. 8 —the analytics context can correspond to the analytics model information of target network analytics);
obtaining, by the target network function entity, the model information of the target network analytics from the analytics context (paras. [0034]-[0039], [0048]-[0049], and [0262]-[0265]; and Fig. 8 —the target NF/NWDAF entity can acquire the analytics model information from the analytics context, i.e., using analytics parameters of Table 1).
With respect to claim 5, Hong teaches:
The method according to claim 3, wherein when the model information of the target network analytics comprises the address of the first model file, the acquiring, by the target network function entity, the model of the target network analytics according to the model information of the target network analytics, comprises:
acquiring, by the target network function entity, a model file according to the address of the first model file (paras. [0054]-[0055], [0103]-[0104], and [0310]-[0311]; and S803-S8033 of Fig. 8 —an model file/analytics can be acquired, by a target NF/NWDAF entity, from a model owner using an address where the model file is stored);
acquiring, by the target network function entity, the model of the target network analytics according to the model file (paras. [0054]-[0055], [0103]-[0104], and [0310]-[0311]; and S803-S8033 of Fig. 8 —the model of the target network analytics can be acquired by the target NF/NWDAF entity based on the model file/analytics).
With respect to claim 6, Hong teaches:
The method according to claim 3, wherein when the model information of the target network analytics comprises information of the first network function entity, the acquiring, by the target network function entity, the model of the target network analytics according to the model information of the target network analytics, comprises:
acquiring, by the target network function entity, a model file from the first network function entity according to the information of the first network function entity (paras. [0103]-[0104], [0188], and [0310]-[0311]; and S803-S8033 of Fig. 8 —an model file/analytics can be acquired, by a target NF/NWDAF entity, after being fed back from a model owner using information about the model owner/network entity, such as the model owner address);
acquiring, by the target network function entity, the model of the target network analytics according to the model file (paras. [0103]-[0104], [0188], and [0310]-[0311]; and S803-S8033 of Fig. 8 —the model of the target network analytics can be acquired by the target NF/NWDAF entity based on the model file/analytics).
With respect to claim 8, Hong teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein after acquiring the model of the target network analytics, the method further comprises:
when the target network function entity successfully acquires the model of the target network analytics, sending, by the target network function entity, a response message of accepting the network analytics transfer to the source network function entity (paras. [0264]-[0272] and [0274]; S803-S8033 and S806 of Fig. 8 —the target NF/NWDAF entity can send a response message to the source target NF/NWDAF entity after acquiring the model, to enable the network analytics transfer to the source NF/NWDAF).
With respect to claim 10, Hong teaches:
The method according to claim 6, wherein after the obtaining the analytics result of the target network analytics, the method further comprises:
updating the model by the target network function entity (paras. [0155], and [0271]-[0272]; and block S804 of Fig. 8 —the target NF/NFWDAF can update its local analytics model after obtaining an analytics result);
sending, by the target network function entity, an update request to the first network function entity (paras. [0239], [0271]-[0272], and [0274]; and blocks S805-S806 of Fig. 8 —the target NF/NFWDAF can send an update request to the source NF/NFWDAF for updating its analytics model),
wherein the update request comprises updated model information of the target network function entity, and is configured to update a model corresponding to the model file by the first network function entity (paras. [0239], [0271]-[0272], and [0274]; and blocks S804-S806 of Fig. 8 —the target NF/NFWDAF update request for updating its analytics model can include updated model information, i.e., version, running instance info. etc., for updating a corresponding model file).
With respect to claim 12, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 12 is written from the perspective of a source network function entity (paras. [0151]-[0152]; and NF/NWDAF model/service consumer entity of Fig. 3), as opposed to a target network function entity. As such, claim 12 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Hong, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 13, Hong teaches:
The method according to claim 12, wherein after the source network function entity sends the model information of the target network analytics to the target network function entity, the method further comprises:
receiving, by the source network function entity, a response of accepting a network analytics transfer sent by the target network function entity (paras. [0220], [0239], [0255], and [0307]-[0308] —the target NF/NWDAF can respond to a network analytics transfer request by accepting and performing the corresponding analytics transfer —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claim alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 14, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 14 is directed to a transfer apparatus for network analytics, applied to a target network function entity with: a memory storing a computer program, a transceiver, and a processor network entity (paras. [0317]-[0324]; and NF apparatus having memory 102, transceiver 103, and processor 101 components of Fig. 10). As such, claim 14 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Hong, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 15, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 15 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Hong, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 16, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 16 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Hong, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 17, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Hong, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
With respect to claim 18, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5. As such, claim 18 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Hong, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Hong, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 23, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 10. As such, claim 23 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Hong, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 10.
With respect to claim 25, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 12, except claim 25 is directed to a transfer apparatus for network analytics, applied to a source network function entity with: a memory storing a computer program, a transceiver, and a processor network entity (paras. [0317]-[0324]; and NF apparatus having memory 102, transceiver 103, and processor 101 components of Fig. 10). As such, claim 25 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Hong, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 12.
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 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of US PG Pub. 2023/0269141 A1, Han et al. (hereinafter “Han”).
With Respect to claim 7, Hong teaches the method according to claim 6.
However, Hong does not teach wherein the acquiring of the model file comprises:
sending, by the target network function entity, a subscription transfer request to the first network function entity, wherein the subscription transfer request is configured to request to transfer a network analytics model subscription of the source network function entity to the target network function entity;
receiving, by the target network function entity, an address of a second model file, where the address of the second model file is sent by the first network function entity according to the subscription transfer request; and
acquiring, by the target network function entity, the model file according to the address of the second model file.
Han does teach:
sending, by a target network function entity, a subscription transfer request to a first network function entity, wherein the subscription transfer request is configured to request to transfer a network analytics model subscription of a source network function entity to the target network function entity (paras. [0102]-[0103] and [0168]-[0174]; and Fig. 8 —a target NWDAF entity can send a subscription transfer request for analytics model subscription to another, more-capable NWDAF entity when the target NWDAF determines it cannot process the request);
receiving, by the target network function entity, an address of a second model file, where the address of the second model file is sent by the first network function entity according to the subscription transfer request (paras. [0168]-[0174]; and Fig. 8 —the subscription request transferee NWDAF entity can then transmit an analytics model data, event information, and correlation ID to the target NWDAF); and
acquiring, by the target network function entity, the model file according to the address of the second model file (paras. [0168]-[0174]; and Fig. 8 —the target NWDAF entity can then acquire the analytics model using the information received from the transferee NWDAF entity.
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong’s NWDAF AI model analytics acquisition solution, with the analytics data subscription request transfer between NWDAF entities, when a target NWDAF is unable to process a corresponding subscription request within a requisite time-frame, as taught by Han.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for cooperating NWDAFs to best respond to a subscription request by transferring the analytics model request to the most capable NWDAF, as recognized by Han (paras. [0102]-[0103] and [0168]-[0174]; and Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 7. As such, claim 20 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Hong in view of Han, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 7.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights