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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant asserts that:
“First, none of the cited references teach or suggest "wherein the first request comprises an
analytics filter that is used to identify mobility events for motion based on a first set of requirements for [UE] mobility, wherein the first set of requirement comprises a minimum distance and a specific time period requirement," as recited in amended independent claim 1. The Office Action alleges that 3GPP TS 23.288 teaches or suggests a "analytics filter that indicates mobility events for motion based on a first set of requirements for [UE] mobility." See Office Action pp. 3-4. Applicant respectfully disagrees. 3GPP TS 23.288 describes an analytics consumer sends a request to the NWDAF that may include an Analytic ID, analytics filter information, target of analytics reporting, and an analytics target period. However, the 3GPP TS 23.288 does not disclose that the analytics request itself includes a minimum distance as a requirement parameter within an analytics filter for mobility events for motion, as recited in amended independent claim 1.” Emphasis added by applicant.
In response to 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., analytics request itself includes a minimum distance as a requirement parameter within an analytics filter for mobility events for motion) are not 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).
Applicant further asserts that:
“Edge does not remedy this deficiency of 3GPP TS 23.288. Edge is directed to low-power periodic and triggered location of a mobile device. Edge's "minimum distance" refers to a device-side trigger parameter, in other words Edge's "minimum distance" is for determining when a mobile device should generate and report its location, not a parameter within an analytics request received by a network analytics function. Thus, the Office Action conflates two architecturally distinct concepts: (1) a network-level analytics request containing combined distance and time-period requirements within an analytics filter indicating mobility events for motion, and (2) a device-level location-reporting trigger. Accordingly, neither reference, alone or in combination, teaches an analytics request with an analytics filter that specifies a minimum distance as an analytics requirement parameter for motion-based mobility events, as recited in amended independent claim 1.” Emphasis added by applicant.
In response to 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., analytics filter that specifies a minimum distance as an analytics requirement parameter for motion-based mobility events) are not 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).
Applicant further asserts that:
“Second, none of the cited references teach or suggest "retrieve the location data for the mobility events that satisfy the minimum distance and the specific time period requirement via a [GMLC]," as recited in amended independent claim 1. The Office Action acknowledges that 3GPP TS 23.288 does not teach retrieving location data via a GMLC and alleges that Edge teaches or suggests the location data for the mobility events is retrieved via a GMLC. See Office Action p. 4. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Edge describes a device-side mechanism where the mobile device itself decides when to report its location based on distance/time triggers. For example, Figure 1 of Edge teaches a GMLC in a 5G core network. However, there is no teaching in Edge of a network analytics entity receiving an analytics request and then using a GMLC
interface to retrieve location data for mobility events satisfying minimum distance and time period parameters from that analytics request. These are fundamentally different operations occurring at different network layers. Accordingly, none of the cited references teach or suggest retrieving the location data for the mobility events that satisfy the minimum distance and the specific time period requirement via a GMLC, as recited in amended independent claim 1.” Emphasis added by applicant.
The examiner, however, disagrees.
Edge discloses retrieving location data for mobility events that satisfy a minimum distance and a specific time period requirement (see paragraphs [0036], [0099], [0289], [0314]) via a Gateway Mobile Location Center ("GMLC) 155 (see Edge, figure 1; paragraph [0060]; and paragraph [0068] which discloses “Additionally, the GMLC 155 is connected to a Location Retrieval Function (LRF) 157, which handles retrieval of location information for the UE 105 and may be used to provide location information for UE 105).
Applicant further asserts that: “The Office Action relies on Rajput to teach retrieving location data via an AMF.
However, even assuming arguendo that Rajput teaches receiving location data via an AMF, Rajput does not teach receiving a first request for analytics, wherein the first request comprises an analytics filter that is used to identify mobility events for motion based on a first set of requirements for UE mobility, wherein the first set of requirement comprises a minimum distance and a specific time period requirement or retrieving the location data for the mobility events that satisfy the minimum distance and the specific time period requirement via a GMLC, as recited in amended claim 1.”
The examiner, however, disagrees. It is discussed for similar reasons as set forth above.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner contends that the rejection to claim 1 is proper.
Regarding independent claim 15, and dependent claims 2-14, 16-20, they are discussed for similar reasons as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Article: “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Architecture enhancements for 5G system (5GS) to support network data analytics services (Release 17)”, submitted by applicant; hereinafter simply referred to as the submitted article) in view of Edge (US 2020/0053686).
As to claim 1, the submitted article discloses an apparatus for network analytics (see section 6.7.2 “UE mobility analytics”, pages 111-114), the apparatus is configured to: receive a first request for analytics (see page 114, figure 6.7.2.4-1, step 1), wherein the first request comprises an analytics filter that is used to identify mobility events for motion based on a first set of requirements (see the submitted article, page 114, figure 6.7.2.4-1, step 1) for User Equipment ("UE") mobility, wherein the first set of requirements comprises a specific time period requirement (see page 114, figure 6.7.2.4-1, step 1); identify a set of UEs to retrieve location data for mobility events based on the first set of requirements (see page 114, figure 6.7.2.4-1, step 2; page 115, step 3); and derive analytics output based on the first request (see page 115, steps 5-6).
The submitted article fails to disclose at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory configured to cause the apparatus to: retrieve the location data for the mobility events that satisfy the minimum distance and the specific time period requirement via a Gateway Mobile Location Center ("GMLC); wherein the first request indicates a first set of requirements for User Equipment ("UE") mobility including a minimum distance and a specific time period requirement.
Edge discloses at least one memory 1410; and at least one processor 1404 coupled with the at least one memory 1410 (see paragraph [0249]) configured to cause an apparatus to: retrieve location data for mobility events that satisfy a minimum distance and a specific time period requirement (see paragraphs [0036], [0099], [0289], [0314]) via a Gateway Mobile Location Center ("GMLC) 155 (see Edge, figure 1); wherein a first request indicates a first set of requirements for User Equipment ("UE") mobility including the minimum distance and the specific time period requirement (see paragraphs [0005], [0100], [0120]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Edge to the submitted article, in order to reduce power usage because location analytics are only needed when a triggered event is satisfied.
As to claims 2, 16, the submitted article discloses that the first request is a UE mobility Analytics request. See page 114, figure 6.7.2.4-1, step 1.
As to claims 3, 17, the combination of the submitted article and Edge discloses wherein to retrieve the location data, the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to transmit a location services ("LCS") service request to the GMLC (see Edge, paragraphs [0060], [0061]).
As to claims 5, 19, the combination of the submitted article and Edge discloses that the first request comprises a target area for any UEs that is located in the target area (see the submitted article, page 111, page 114, figure 6.7.2.4-1, step 1), and wherein to identify the set of UEs, the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to determine a list of UEs within the target area that satisfy the first set of requirements (see the submitted article, page 111, page 114, figure 6.7.2.4-1, step 1; see Edge, see paragraphs [0036], [0099], [0289], [0314]).
As to claims 6, 20, the combination of the submitted article and Edge discloses that to derive the analytics based on the first request, the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to: determine a subset of UEs that satisfy the first set of requirements within the target area; and derive analytics for the subset of UEs based on the first request. See the submitted article, page 111 which discloses “The target of analytics reporting which is a single UE or a group of UEs”; page 111, page 114, figure 6.7.2.4-1, step 1).
As to claim 8, the combination of the submitted article and Edge discloses that the first request comprises a list of Target UEs (see the submitted article, page 111, page 114, figure 6.7.2.4-1, step 1), wherein to retrieve the location data, the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to: transmit a second request to retrieve location information from the list of Target UEs, wherein the second request includes the first set of requirements (see the submitted article, page 111, page 114, figure 6.7.2.4-1, step 1), and wherein derive the analytics output for a subset of UEs that satisfy the first set of requirements for UE mobility, the subset being identified from the retrieved location information (see Edge, see paragraphs [0036], [0099], [0289], [0314]).
As to claim 9, the combination of the submitted article and Edge discloses that the first request includes an indication to provide analytics for UEs that are in motion for a minimum distance at a specific time interval (see Edge, paragraphs [0036], [0099], [0289], [0314]), and wherein to derive the analytics for the UEs that are in motion, the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to: determine a subset of UEs that are in motion for the minimum distance at the specific time interval; and derive the analytics output for the subset of UEs based on the first request (see the submitted article, page 111, page 114, figure 6.7.2.4-1; see also Edge, paragraphs [0036], [0099], [0289], [0314]).
As to claim 10, the combination of the submitted article and Edge discloses that the first request includes an indication to provide analytics for UEs that are located in a target zone within a target area (see Edge, paragraph [0036] which discloses “a defined geographic area”), wherein the minimum distance requirement comprises a threshold linear distance based on the target zone (see Edge, paragraphs [0100], [0156], [0289]), and wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to: transmit a second request to retrieving location information, wherein the second request comprises the threshold linear distance (see Edge, paragraphs [0100], [0156], [0289]); and identify a subset UEs that report location information within the target zone of the target area (see Edge, paragraphs [0100], [0156], [0289]); and derive analytics output based on the first request comprises deriving analytics output for the subset of the UEs (see Edge, paragraphs [0100], [0156], [0289]).
As to claim 11, the combination of the submitted article and Edge discloses that the minimum distance requirement comprises a threshold linear distance, and wherein a cumulative UE movement that exceeds the threshold linear distance triggers a location report from a UE. See Edge, paragraphs [0036], [0289].
As to claim 12, the combination of the submitted article and Edge discloses that the set of UEs is indicated by the first request, and wherein the first request indicates one or more of: a minimum time interval between successive location event reports (see Edge, paragraphs [0100], [0156]), a maximum time interval between successive location event reports, and a maximum event sampling interval.
As to claim 13, the combination of the submitted article and Edge discloses that the analytics output comprises a set of location statistics indicating one or more of: a start location, an end location, an average distance, and a time of motion (see the submitted article, page 112, table 6.7.2.2-2 which discloses “timestamped UE positions”, “a time stamp when UE enters this area”).
As to claim 14, the combination of the submitted article and Edge discloses that the analytics output comprises a set of location predictions (see the submitted article, page 111, section 6.7.2.1 which discloses “NWDAF supporting UE mobility statistics or predictions … to provide UE mobility statistics or predictions”) indicating one or more of: an expected start location, an expected end location, an expected average distance, an expected time of motion (see the submitted article, page 112, table 6.7.2.2-2 which discloses “timestamped UE positions”, “a time stamp when UE enters this area”), and a confidence level.
As to claim 15, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
Claims 4, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Article: “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Architecture enhancements for 5G system (5GS) to support network data analytics services (Release 17)”, submitted by applicant; hereinafter simply referred to as the submitted article) in view of Edge (US 2020/0053686) as applied to claims 1, 15 above, and further in view of Rajput (US 2022/0272541).
As to claims 4, 18, the combination of the submitted article and Edge does disclose wherein to retrieve the location data, the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to invoke an enhanced location services ("eLCS") service request (see Edge, paragraphs [0059], [0078]) by transmitting a location info service request to an Access and Mobility Management Function ("AMF") 154 (see figure 1, paragraph [0060]). The combination of the submitted article and Edge fails to disclose transmitting a Namf_ProvideLocationInfo_service request to an Access and Mobility Management Function ("AMF"). Rajput discloses transmitting a Namf_ProvideLocationInfo_service request to an Access and Mobility Management Function ("AMF"). See paragraphs [0028], [0079]. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Rajput to the combination of the submitted article and Edge, in order to yield predictable results such as accurate and flexible positioning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 7, the prior art of record fail to anticipate, or render obvious, that to determine the subset of UEs, the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to: retrieve, from an Access and Mobility Management Function ("AMF"), a first set of UEs that are served in the target area; transmit a second request to retrieve location information from the first set of UEs, wherein the second request includes the first set of requirements; and identify the subset of UEs from the retrieved location information that satisfy the first set of requirements for UE mobility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Edge (US 2020/0092776 A1) discloses location services for user equipments in wireless network.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights