DETAILED FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments/Response to Applicant’s Remarks
This office action is in response to the amendment of July 6, 2026.
The amendments to the claims and the accompanying remarks of the amendment of July 6, 2026 have been carefully considered.
All of the claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of April 3, 2026 have been overcome, except for the rejection in the final paragraph on page 3 of the office action. That paragraph states: “In each of independent claim 1, independent claim 2, dependent claim 12, independent claim 13, and, independent claim 16, the uses of the word, ‘function’ are indefinite and unclear in context as to whether a software function is meant or some other sense of the word, ‘function.’ For purposes of examination, the uses of the word, ‘function’ are presumed to mean a software function.”
The text of 37 CFR 1.111(b) is as follows:
“(b) In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The applicant’s or patent owner’s reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.” (Bold added).
Applicant has failed to address a portion of the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of April 3, 2026 that is quoted in section 4 above. Thus, that rejection is hereby maintained and is repeated below. 37 CFR 1.111(b).
Next, on pages 9-10 of the amendment of July 6, 2026, Applicant has presented arguments as to the rejection of claims 1 and 16-20 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of April 3, 2026. Applicant has argued that claim 1 has been amended, “to expressly recite that the method is ‘performed by a network data analytics function (NWDAF) configured to operate within a wireless communication network” and includes the positive step of “retrieving, from a location management function (LMF), information corresponding to an accuracy of a measured location.” Applicant goes on to argue that the amended claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category under 35 USC 101 that is “performed by a specific entity, NDWAF, operating within the concrete architecture of a wireless communication network and requiring a specific interaction with another defined network function (the LMF) to retrieve location measurement accuracy information … a concrete technological implementation in a 5G wireless system.” Finally, adding, “the claims as amended are limited to the particular network-implemented method for analyzing measurement accuracy” not preempting “all software implementations or the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”
In response to Applicant’s argument above in section 7, it is noted that the remarks address the rejection of claim 1, but, they do not address the rejection of claim 16, other than the general allegation in paragraph [0013] on page 10 of the amendment. 37 CFR 1.111(b). Nevertheless, the rejection of claims 1 and 16-20 under 35 USC 101 are considered overcome by the amendment and by the remarks with that amendment.
New rejections are set forth below, in addition to those maintained, that have been necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In each of independent claim 1, independent claim 2, dependent claim 12, independent claim 13, and, independent claim 16, the uses of the word, ‘function’ are indefinite and unclear in context as to whether a software function is meant or some other sense of the word, ‘function.’ For purposes of examination, the uses of the word, ‘function’ are presumed to mean a software function. (Maintained from the previous office action). 37 CFR 1.111(b).
On lines 1-2 of independent claim 1 as newly-amended, the claim language, “a network data analytics function (NWDAF) configured to operate withing a wireless communication network” is indefinite and unclear in context as to whether the claimed method is performed “within a wireless communication network” in that the claim language on lines 1-2 of claim 1 seems merely to describe the NWDAF software as being “configured” so that it could operate within a wireless communications network.
Overall, independent claim 2 as newly-amended is indefinite and unclear as to how “network function” software and the NWDAF software could be executed within a “wireless communication network” when the claim fails to positively recite a “wireless communication network.”
Similarly, overall, independent claim 13 is indefinite and unclear as to how “network function” software could be executed within a “wireless communication network” when the claim fails to positively recite a “wireless communication network.”
On lines 1-2 of independent claim 16 as newly-amended, the claim language, “performed by a network function within a wireless communication network” is indefinite and unclear as to how the claimed “method” could be performed by the “network function” software “within a wireless communication network” when neither is mentioned in the body of the claim.
Each of dependent claims 3-12 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 2.
Each of dependent claims 14-15 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 13.
Each of dependent claims 17-20 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 16.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 13, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-12, 14-15, and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Finality of this Office Action
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 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights