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 Amendment
This Action is in response to Amendment/ Remarks filed on 06/07/2024.
Claims 14 and 16-17 are amended. Claim 15 is cancelled. There are no new claims.
Claims 1-14 and 16-17 are subject to restriction by original presentation (see below).
Claims 1-14 and 16-17 are presented for examination, and remain pending.
Claims 14 and 16-17 are withdrawn from consideration (see below).
Examiner’s Note
On Thursday, February 12, 2026, examiner called Attorney Scott Hilton (Reg. #: 66011) regarding restriction by original presentation (withdrawal of claims 14, 16-17), and regarding potential examiner’s amendment to overcome 101 rejection to move this case to an allowance. A proposed draft was not furnished by the office, but the Examiner recommended several changes to claim 1:
Amending the preamble, as it recites “performing a network function” without more details regarding “performing the network function” in the body of the claim;
Addition of concrete technical environment in the claim as indicated by the applicant in the remarks/ argument against 101 (see page 10-11 of REMARKS, filed 11/07/2025); and
Addition of claims 3, 12 and 9 in the independent claim 1 to show practical application.
Several attempts were made to contact back the applicant’s representative in the following week. However, as of Thursday, February 19, 2026, no response has been received whether or not the examiner’s proposal was acceptable. As a result, the examiner has resolved to send this office action in response to the applicant’s remarks filed on 11/07/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 09/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The amendment to abstract was received on 11/07/2025. These amendments are acceptable, and as a result, the respective specification objections made in the non-final Office Action is withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions by Original Presentation
Amended claims 14 and 16-17 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed in claim 1 for the following reasons:
Inventions I (Claim 1-13) and II (Claims 14 and 16-17) are related as sub-combinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The sub-combinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one sub-combination is separately usable. In the instant case, sub-combination II has separate utility such as to receive a subscription request from an application enablement entity; determine local user equipment (UE) data, analytics, or a combination thereof in response to receiving the subscription request from the application enablement entity; and to transmit the local UE data, analytics, or the combination thereof to the application enablement entity as a subscription response. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between sub-combinations usable together. Where applicant elects a sub-combination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable sub-combination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or non-statutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
there would be a serious search burden as evidenced by separate classification, status, or field of search.
Invention I (Claim 1-13) are directed to data collection and deriving data analytics, classified at least in H04L41/14, and/or H04L67/025.
Inventions II (Claims 14 and 16-17) are directed to receiving subscription request, determining requested data, and transmitting subscription response, classified at least in H04W8/20 and/or H04W8/18.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 14 and 16-17 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. §102/ 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11 of REMARKS, filed 11/07/2025, with respect to rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. §102/ 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. §102/ 103 of 08/07/2025 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections
In the non-final office Action mailed on 08/07/2025, claims 1-13 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (STEP 2) as being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the response filed on 11/07/2025, applicant puts forth arguments against the rejection. The applicant’s amendment/ arguments, see page 10-11 of REMARKS, filed 11/07/2025, with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the response filed on 01/10/2018, applicant puts forth in substance that:
“The Office Action rejected Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The independent claims are directed to a specific technical apparatus configured with at least one memory and processor to perform concrete operations for deriving application data analytics in the context of wireless communication networks. Unlike an abstract idea of data analysis or mental processes, the claims recite particularized technical steps-such as associating an application data analytics event with multiple network and data collection events, obtaining data from multiple data-producing entities, configuring a second set of data based on abstractions or portions of the first set of data, and deriving application data analytics for end-to-end application performance. These operations are tied to improvements in the functioning of communication networks and application enablement platforms, not to a generic mathematical concept. Accordingly, the claims amount to "significantly more" than an abstract idea under the Alice/Mayo framework because they recite a specific technical solution to the technical problem of coordinating and optimizing end-to-end application performance analytics across heterogeneous network segments.
Moreover, the claims are not merely directed to collecting and analyzing data in the abstract; rather, they specify concrete technical environments (UE, RAN, transport network, core network, APIs, edge platforms) and real-time processing of control plane and user plane data. These elements integrate the data analytics into the operation of the communication system itself to achieve improved performance visibility and predictive management. By improving how application performance analytics are derived and exposed to application consumers within a networked environment, the claimed invention provides a practical application and a technological improvement over prior systems. For these reasons, the independent claims should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” (See page 10-11 of REMARKS, filed 11/07/2025).
Applicant argues that the independent claims are directed to performing concrete operations for deriving application data analytics in the context of wireless communication networks... coordinating and optimizing end-to-end application performance analytics across heterogeneous network segments. Applicant adds that the claim(s) specify concrete technical environments (UE, RAN, transport network, core network, APIs, edge platforms) and real-time processing of control plane and user plane data. These elements integrate the data analytics into the operation of the communication system itself to achieve improved performance visibility and predictive management.
Examiner disagrees, as the claim neither depicts the alleged context of wireless communication networks, nor it recites heterogeneous network segments. The alleged technical environments (UE, RAN, transport network, core network, APIs, edge platforms) and real-time processing of control plane and user plane data are simply not part of the claims. Therefore, the claims lacks proper technical environment and/or context of wireless communication networks.
Applicant alleges that the office action interprets that claim limitations as generic mathematical concept. However, as set forth in the non-final rejection of 08/07/2025 “associating an application data analytics event with multiple network and data collection events, obtaining data from multiple data-producing entities, configuring a second set of data based on abstractions or portions of the first set of data, and deriving application data analytics for end-to-end application performance” these limitation are either data gathering step (obtaining) or mental processes (associating, configuring, deriving). These mental steps fail to integrate the data analytics into the operation of the communication system itself to achieve improved performance visibility and predictive management.
For these reasons, the applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 has been interpreted as imposing three requirements. First, whoever invents or discovers an eligible invention may obtain only one patent therefor. MPEP 2104. This requirement forms the basis for statutory double patenting rejections when two applications claim the same invention (i.e. claim identical subject matter). Second, a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. Id.; MPEP 2106. Third, a claimed invention must be useful or have a utility that is specific, substantial and credible. MPEP 2104.
The four eligible categories of invention include: (1) process which is an act, or a series of acts or steps, (2) machine which is an concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices, (3) manufacture which is an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery, and (4) composition of matter which is all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids. MPEP 2106(I).
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (STEP 2) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for performing a network function, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor. Although the claimed invention is a statutory category of invention, the apparatus is caused to:
associate an application data analytics event with a combination of a plurality of data collection events and a plurality of network data analytics events based on an application request for end-to-end application related performance analytics (Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion);
configure a second set of data based on the first set of data, wherein the second set of data comprises at least a portion of the first set of data, an abstraction of the first set of data, or a combination thereof based on the application data analytics event (Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion); and
derive application data analytics corresponding to the application data analytics event based on the second set of data (Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “associate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually creating association between application data analytics event and a combination of a plurality of data collection events and a plurality of network data analytics events. Similarly, “configure” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually creating a filtered or abstracted data from first set of data based on the application data analytics event. Similarly, “configure” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually creating a filtered or abstracted data from first set of data based on the application data analytics event. Accordingly, the claim recites abstract idea(s).
Next, an evaluation is done whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations in:
obtain a first set of data from a plurality of data producing entities, data analytics producing entities, or a combination thereof based on the application data analytics event;
While the step is used in obtaining a first set of data from a plurality of data producing entities, data analytics producing entities, or a combination thereof based on the application data analytics event, the obtaining step is performed in order to gather data for the step of mental analysis, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does 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.
Next, the additional elements are evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they amount to significantly more. The claim recites the additional elements in “at least one processor” and “obtain a first set of data from a plurality of data producing entities, data analytics producing entities, or a combination thereof based on the application data analytics event”.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “at least one processor” indicate generic computer elements, applied generically to an abstract idea. The mere recitation of “at least one processor” is akin to adding the words “apply it" with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, and as set forth above, the step of “obtaining a first set of data from a plurality of data producing entities, data analytics producing entities, or a combination thereof based on the application data analytics event” is necessary precursors for all uses of the recited exception. These steps are thus extra-solution activities. Adding the steps of (i) obtaining a first set of data from a plurality of data producing entities, data analytics producing entities, or a combination thereof based on the application data analytics event, to a process that only recites (ii) associate an application data analytics event with a combination of a plurality of data collection events and a plurality of network data analytics events based on an application request for end-to-end application related performance analytics (a mental process), (iii) configure a second set of data based on the first set of data, wherein the second set of data comprises at least a portion of the first set of data, an abstraction of the first set of data, or a combination thereof based on the application data analytics event (a mental process), and (iv) derive application data analytics corresponding to the application data analytics event based on the second set of data (a mental process) do not add a meaningful limitation to the process for performing a network function. As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Taking the elements both individually and as a combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, making the claim patent ineligible.
Claims 2-8 and 10-13 depend on claim 1, and introduce additional limitation
wherein the second set of data comprises data corresponding to different segments contributing to an end-to-end application service, wherein the segments comprise at least one user equipment (UET), a radio access network (RAN), a transport network, a core network, a data network, an edge platform, a middleware, a networking stack, a communication interface, an application programming interface (API), or a combination thereof;
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to receive a first request from an external application for providing application data analytics corresponding to an end-to-end application service for at least one application;
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to:
configure an association of the application data analytics event with at least one data collection event; and
configure a mapping of the data collection events to at least one data producer
wherein the at least one processor configures is configured to cause the apparatus to configure an exposure of the derived application data analytics to an application analytics service consumer based on a vertical application requirement, the application data analytics event, an application service profile, a slice profile, a service level agreement between the apparatus and the application analytics service consumer, or some a combination thereof;
wherein the second set of data comprises a combination of data corresponding to different granularities, data producers, or a combination thereof;
wherein the second set of data comprises a filtering of data based on data producer priorities, a data producer reliability, or a combination thereof;
wherein the second set of data is determined in real time based on real-time measurements from a user plane;
wherein the derived application data analytics comprise a predictive end to end application related performance parameter, and the predictive end to end application related performance parameter comprises: an end- to-end application session performance sustainability indication, an end-to-end application session performance change indication, an end-to-end application server performance sustainability indication, an end-to-end application server performance change indication, or a combination thereof;
wherein the derived application data analytics are derived at an application enablement client of at least one user equipment (UE);
wherein the application data analytics are derived at an edge platform, a cloud platform, a radio access network (RAN) intelligent controller, or some a combination thereof; and
wherein the first set of data comprises: application enabler layer data, control plane data, user plane data, local user equipment (UE) data, management plane data, edge platform data, network analytics data, or a combination thereof.
As set forth in claim 1, these limitations as drafted, are processes that each, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers method of Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application of the exception. If the exception is not integrated into a practical application, then the claim is “directed to” the exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because the additional elements are either generic computer elements, applied generically to an abstract idea, or insignificant extra-solution activities that do not amount to an inventive concept. Taking the elements both individually and as a combination, each step of the process perform purely generic functions. Therefore, claims 2-8 and 10-13 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
NOTE: As set forth above, to overcome the 101 rejections, Examiner recommends incorporating limitations recited in claims 3, 9 and 12 into the independent claim 1, add concrete technical environment in the claim, and establish practical application in the arguments section, when a response is filed.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shan et al. (US 20190222489 A1) discloses network data analytics function (NWDAF) influencing fifth generation (5G) QoS configuration and adjustment.
WANG (US 20240276198 A1) teaches NWDAF, as a network analytic function managed by an operator, provides a data analytics server for a 5G) core network (5GC) network.
BOUAZIZI et al. (US 20230292226 A1) discloses media application function exposure functionality.
LEE et al. (US 20200358689 A1) provides communication analysis of user equipment based on network data analysis.
KIM et al. (US 20200045559 A1) discloses method for transmitting and receiving signals related to QoS prediction in a wireless communication system and apparatus therefor.
Bostick et al. (US 20170091876 A1) teaches predictive analytics for event mapping.
Han et al. (US 20190356558 A1) utilizes data collection and analysis function in wireless communication system.
Brockners et al. (US 8914810 B1) teaches automatic start-up of default services following notification event in network attachment subsystem.
Puente et al. (US 11991544 B2) correlates network data analytics information.
Conclusion
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 SANDARVA KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8107. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI, 0800-1700.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
/SANDARVA KHANAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453