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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16,18-20,22-24,26-28,30-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16,18-20,22-24,26-28,30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, support in Applicant's specification could not be found for the feature (the analytics indicate a list of UEs whose traffic related to the second information does not match the application ID and the traffic of the UEs). Applicant relies to paragraph 0044,0059,0060 for the above limitations. However, examiner could not find in the above cited paragraph for the feature “the analytics indicate a list of UEs whose traffic related to the second information does not match the application ID and the traffic of the UEs”. To overcome this rejection, Applicant should point out to specific portions of the specification that provide the written description for the feature.
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 16,18-20,22-24,26-28,30-35 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.
Independent claims 16,20,24,28 recites the limitation “the traffic of the UEs”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Does applicant mean traffic of the list of UEs?
Further, since the analytics indicate a list of UEs whose traffic related to the second information but examiner is unclear how the analytics does not match the application ID and the traffic of the UEs?
Dependent claims 18-19,22-23,26-27,30-35 depended on the rejected base claims, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
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 16,18-20, 22-24, 26-28, 30, 32, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao et al (us 2020/0196169) (hereinafter Dao) in view of Lee et al (us 11,381,494) (hereinafter Lee) and further in view of Feder et al (us 11,310,731) (hereinafter Feder).
As regarding claim 16, Dao discloses receiving, from a policy control function (PCF) entity, first information requesting analytics for user equipment (UE) traffic (see Dao 0071 PCF sends request to NWDA (i.e. NWDA receives) regarding mobility management parameter relate to UE); transmitting, to a network entity, a message requesting data for the analytics (see Dao 0009, NWDA request measurement data from a plurality of entities such as smf amf, udm ue…(Dao 0048-0049)); receiving, from the network entities second information associated with the UE based on the message (see Dao 0072, measurement data received from network entities and analyze by NWDA).
Dao is silent to the concept of the first information includes a UE identity (ID), an analytics ID, and an application ID, wherein the second information includes the UE ID, a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI), a data network name (DNN), an uplink (UL) data volume and a downlink (DL) data volume; generating the analytics for the UE traffic and transmitting, to the PCF entity, the generated analytics.
Lee teaches the concept of the first information includes a UE identity (ID), an analytics ID, and an application ID (see Lee col.10, lines 11-34, NF sends subscription request to NWDAF where the request indicates for a specific UE, analytic ID and application ID), wherein the second information includes the UE ID, a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI), a data network name (DNN), an uplink (UL) data volume and a downlink (DL) data volume (see Lee col.14, lines 58-67 to col.15, lines 1-35, NWDAF receives data for a specific UE and application, data receives from NF producer/source such as UE ID…S NSSAI…DNN…UL data rate and DL data rate…etc.,); generating the analytics for the UE traffic (see Lee col.14, lines 58-67 to col.15, lines 1-30, based on the request from the consumer, retrieve/request NF source for the data, and determine data to send to the NF consumer); and transmitting, to the PCF entity, the generated analytics (see Lee col.15, lines 3135, provides analytic data to NF service consumer, (Lee col.14,lines 26-27, suggests that the consumer is a PCF)).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lee to Dao because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Dao with Lee’s teaching for the purpose of enable efficiently providing communication analysis for the NF consumer.
The combination of Dao-Lee is silent in regard to the concept of the analytics indicate a list of UEs whose traffic related to the second information does not match the application ID and the traffic of the UEs.
Feder discloses the concept of the analytics indicate a list of UEs whose traffic related to the second information does not match the application ID and the traffic of the UEs (see Feder col.29, lines 54-63; col.30, lines 31-46; PCF requests NWDAF for analytic where NWDAF identify all users in area of interest/S-NSSAI based on the requested filter (i.e. does not match the application ID and the traffic of the UEs) and return the identified information to the PCF).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Feder to Dao-Lee because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Dao-Lee with Feder’s teaching for the purpose of efficiently improving the way that resources are managed for efficiency and troubleshooting (see Feder col.1, lines 43-45).
As regarding claim 18, Dao-Lee-Feder discloses the analytics includes third information on the UE traffic, wherein the third information includes at least one of information on a UE selection policy (URSP) or information on traffic descriptor (see Dao 0131, UE route selection policy (URSP information can be requested and provide).
As regarding claim 19, Dao-Lee-Feder discloses the network entity includes at least one of a session management function (SMF) entity or a user plane function (UPF) entity (see Dao 0009, NWDA request measurement data from a plurality of entities such as smf amf, udm ue…(Dao 0048-0049)).
As regarding claim 20, Dao-Lee-Feder discloses transmitting, to a network data analytics function (NWDAF) entity, first information requesting analytics for user equipment (UE) traffic (see Dao 0071 PCF sends request to NWDA regarding mobility management parameter relate to UE); the first information includes a UE identity (ID), an analytics ID, and an application ID (see Lee col.10, lines 11-34, NF sends subscription request to NWDAF where the request indicates for a specific UE, analytic ID and application ID); receiving, from the NWDAF entity, the analytics for the UE traffic (see Lee col.15, lines 3135, provides analytic data to NF service consumer (i.e. receiving from NWDAF analytic data), (Lee col.14,lines 26-27, suggests that the consumer is a PCF)), wherein the analytics for the UE traffic is based on the first information and second information collected for the analytics (see Lee col.14, lines 58-67 to col.15, lines 1-30, based on the request from the consumer, retrieve/request NF source for the data, and determine data to send to the NF consumer), the second information including the UE ID, a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI), a data network name (DNN), an uplink (UL) data volume and a downlink (DL) data volume (see Lee col.14, lines 58-67 to col.15, lines 1-35, NWDAF receives data for a specific UE and application, data receives from NF producer/source such as UE ID…S-NSSAI…DNN…UL data rate and DL Page 6 Application/Control Number: 18/837,543 Art Unit: 2459 data rate…etc.,).
The same motivation was utilized in claim 16 applied equally well to claim 20.
As regarding claim 22, Dao-Lee-Feder discloses the analytics includes third information on the UE traffic, wherein the third information includes at least one of information on a UE selection policy (URSP) or information on traffic descriptor (see Dao 0131, UE route selection policy (URSP information can be requested and provide).
As regarding claim 23, Dao-Lee-Feder discloses generating fourth information applying for the UE traffic based on the analytics and transmitting the fourth information is associated with at least one of an updated URSP or an updated traffic descriptor (see Lee col.11, lines 64-67, consumer update the subscription, it is obvious that if the subscription is updated, the NWDAF will carry out the steps as before to request and generate analytic data for the consumer/s). The same motivation was utilized in claim 16 applied equally well to claim 23.
As regarding claims 24, 26-28,30, the limitations of claims 24, 26-28,30 are similar to limitations of rejected claims 16, 18-20, 22-23 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale. Dao-Lee further discloses a transceiver and a controller (see Dao 0100, processor, and 0102, interface such as transmitter and receiver antenas).
As regarding claim 32, Dao-Lee-Feder discloses the analytics is generated based on the first information and the second information (see Lee col.14, lines 58-67 to col.15, lines 1-30, based on the request from the consumer, retrieve/request NF source for the data, and determine data to send to the NF consumer). The same motivation was utilized in claim 16 applied equally well to claim 32.
As regarding claim 34, limitations of claim 34 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 32 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 31,33,35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao-Lee-Feder as applied to claims 16,24,28 above and further in view of Munoz De La Torre et al (us 2025/0007798) (hereinafter Munoz).
As regarding claim 31, Dao-Lee-Feder discloses the invention as claims in claim 16 above, however Dao-Lee-Feder is silent in regard to the concept of the analytics is based on identifying whether an application ID of the UE traffic matches the application ID included in the first information.
Munoz teaches the concept of the analytics is based on identifying whether an application ID of the UE traffic matches the application ID included in the first information (see Munoz 0099-0100, NWDAF collects data from UPF the collected data such as traffic of UE on per application ID basis).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Munoz to Dao-Lee-Feder because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Dao-Lee-Feder with Munoz’s teaching for the purpose of facilitate real-time detection of traffic to minimize the risk of improper traffic handling (see Munoz 0004).
As regarding claims 33,35, limitations of claims 33,35 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 31 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUYEN MY DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4226. The examiner can normally be reached (571)272-4226.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571)272-4170. 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.
/DUYEN M DOAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights