DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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: 08/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 07/28/2026.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-20, 23, and 25 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 4, 12, 14, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 9, 11, 21-22, 24, and 26-28 have been cancelled to date.
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 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 12, 14, and 25, Applicant argues against Hong teaching the amended claim feature: “wherein the target network analytics is an ongoing network analytics process of the source network function entity that is transferred from the source network function entity to the target network function entity,” based on the §102 rejection of its independent claims in the previous Office Action. Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 11-12.
However, in the instant Office Action a new grounds of rejection, i.e., the combination of Garcia Martin, is now relied upon to substantially teach/suggest the above-contested, amended claim subject matter under §103. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments against Hong alone, as previously applied under §102, allegedly not teaching target network analytics as an ongoing network analytics process of the source NF entity, and transfer of such from the source NF to a target NF, has substantially been rendered moot. In this regard, the Examiner respectfully refers Applicant to the instant rejection of its independent claims 1, 12, 14, and 25, which is based on the combination of Garcia Martin with Hong under §103.
Additionally, Applicant argued, with respect to the §102 rejection of the previous Office Action, that “[t]here is no disclosure of one NWDAF transferring an ongoing analytics process to a different NWDAF,” in Hong. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 11. In this regard, the Examiner would like to note that none of Applicant’s independent claims actually recite any NWDAF(s), as argued, but instead only recite: a source NF entity and a target NF entity. Notably, neither a source nor target NF entity is required to be a NWDAF entity, particularly applying the Office’s BRI standard. This is an important distinction, as there are many different types of NF entities, whereas the NWDAF entity is well-known to serve a purposeful analytics function to which other NF entities can subscribe to, i.e., where a NWDAF entity reports subscribed-to network data analytics to consumer NFs for ongoing subscriptions. This important distinction is likewise described by Applicant’s in its: Response to the Examiner’s Question. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 13.
Accordingly, Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., multiple, claimed NWDAFs) are not in fact recited in the rejected claims at issue. 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).
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments provided with respect to each of independent claims 1, 12, 14, and 25, are determined not to be persuasive, or have otherwise been rendered moot based on the new grounds of rejection (the combination of Garcia Martin) applied herein, which was warranted by Applicant’s claim amendments.
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 p. 13. 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 § 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 (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 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 1-6, 8, 10, 12-19, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2022/0329493 A1, Hong et al. (hereinafter “Hong”) in view of US PG Pub. 2022/0345925 A1, Garcia Martin et al. (hereinafter “Garcia Martin”).
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 the target network function entity, an analytics context of the target network analytics from the source network function entity (Hong: 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);
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).
However, Hong does not explicitly teach:
wherein the target network analytics is an ongoing network analytics process of the source network function entity that is transferred from the source network function entity to the target network entity.
Garcia Martin does teach:
wherein a target network analytics is an ongoing network analytics process of a source network function entity that is transferred from the source network function entity to a target network entity (paras. [0004]-[0005], [0035]-[0036], [0040], and [0062]; and Step 1 of Figs. 3-4) —target network analytics, i.e., statistic, predictions, patterns, etc., relating to one or more target network terminals, or a device group, can be subscribed to by a NF with a NWDAF, i.e., via a subscription request, such as a NWDAF_AnalyticsSubscription_Subscribe message —a requesting NF can thereafter receive periodic analytics results relating to the target entity/group, i.e., as corresponding analytics change or are updated over time —the Examiner notes that subscription-based requests are well-known to be “ongoing,” in contrast to a one-time request).
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 transfer of target network analytics, i.e., a trained AI model, from a source NW entity to a target NW entity, to occur as an ongoing process via subscription, as taught by Garcia Martin.
The motivation for doing so would have been to consider network analytics updating over time for subscribed-to analytics data reporting, as recognized by Garcia Martin (paras. [0004]-[0005], [0035]-[0036], [0040], and [0062]; and Step 1 of Figs. 3-4).
With respect to claim 2, Hong in view of Garcia Martin 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 (Hong: 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 in view of Garcia Martin 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 (Hong: 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 in view of Garcia Martin teaches:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining, by the target network function entity, the model information of the target network analytics from the analytics context (Hong: 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 in view of Garcia Martin 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 (Hong: 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 (Hong: 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 in view of Garcia Martin 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 (Hong: 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 (Hong: 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 in view of Garcia Martin 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 (Hong: 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 in view of Garcia Martin 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 (Hong: 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 (Hong: 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 (Hong: 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 §103 based on Hong in view of Garcia Martin, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 13, Hong in view of Garcia Martin 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 (Hong: 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 (Hong: 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 §103 based on Hong in view of Garcia Martin, 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 §103 based on Hong in view of Garcia Martin, 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 §103 based on Hong in view of Garcia Martin, 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 §103 based on Hong in view of Garcia Martin, 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 §103 based on Hong in view of Garcia Martin, 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 §103 based on Hong in view of Garcia Martin, 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 §103 based on Hong in view of Garcia Martin, 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 (Hong: 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 §103 based on Hong in view of Garcia Martin, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 12.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Garcia Martin, in further view of US PG Pub. 2023/0269141 A1, Han et al. (hereinafter “Han”).
With Respect to claim 7, Hong in view of Garcia Martin teaches the method according to claim 6.
However, Hong in view of Garcia Martin does not explicitly 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 in view of Garcia Martin’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 Garcia Martin and Han, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 7.
Conclusion
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