DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 16 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 16, the limitation “transmitting the data collection configuration message …”, lacks antecedent basis in the claim. However, claim 12, as opposed to claim 1, provides proper antecedent basis for the limitation. As such, the Examiner is interpreting claim 16, as being dependent on claim 12, as opposed to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 1, Applicant’s claimed invention falls under the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 07, 2019) (“2019 PEG”) as the claimed invention is directed to concepts that, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “network entity”), could otherwise be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’; and CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible)). The limitations that are directed to the judicial exception (i.e., mental process) are:
receiving a training data request from a UE vendor;
transmitting the training data request …;
receiving a data collection configuration message … in response to transmitting the training data request;
transmitting a data collection configuration acknowledgement (ACK) … in response to receiving the data collection configuration message; and
performing a data collection procedure based on the data collection configuration message”.
Moreover, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and there are no additional elements that add significantly more to the claim. As noted above, the use of the generic computer component (i.e., “network entity”) does not add a practical application or significantly more to the claim (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). In addition, the mere step of “uploading one or more data to the UE vendor based on performing the data collection procedure”, written at a high-level of generality, similar to the downloading, see Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016), constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). Thus, even considering the additional elements in combination with the steps of the abstract idea, the claim fails to recite a practical application and there are no additional elements that add significantly more to the judicial exception/mental process. As such claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
As per claim 2-3, similar to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (see MPEP §2106.05(g)), selecting a specific set of data for data collection purposes (i.e., “…wherein the data collection configuration message includes a reference signal (RS) list for data collection, an area for data collection, a period for data collection, network side configuration, channel type, and a process identification (ID) on data collection”), fails to add a practical application or significantly more to the judicial exception/mental process. As such claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
As per claims 4, the further step of “generating a meta-ID for data uploading corresponding to one or more metadata based on the process ID” could otherwise be performed in the human mind, as such claim 4, similar to claim 1, is directed to the judicial exception (i.e., mental process). Moreover, restating the intended purpose for generating the meta-ID, i.e., “for data uploading”, fails to add a practical application or significantly more to the judicial exception/mental process. As such claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
As per claim 5, with respect to the added limitation of “receiving the data collection configuration message further comprises receiving the data collection configuration message as at least one of information elements in a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message or a new signaling procedure”, the use of “information elements in a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message” for communication with a UE was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example Wu, ¶0197, i.e., “the measurement control message may be an RRC connection reconfiguration message”). Therefore, as opposed to adding a meaningful limitation that integrates the exception into a practical application or add significantly more to the claim, the limitation of claim merely links the use of the mental process/abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use or technological environment (i.e., wireless networking) (see MPEP §2106.05(h)).
Claims 6-10, limit the data (see claims 6-9, i.e., “where the one or more data corresponds to a UE report including a downlink raw channel matrix and a metadata identification”) or format (see claim 10) used for collection/uploading purposes. Thus, similar to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (see MPEP §2106.05(g)), limiting the data for collection/uploading purposes, here, fails to add a practical application or significantly more to the judicial exception/mental process. As such claim 6-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 11 add further details for performing the data collection procedure (i.e., “…wherein performing the data collection procedure further comprises: receiving a reference signal (RS) from the network entity in response to transmitting the data collection configuration ACK; and performing one or more measurements based on the RS”), which are not capable of being performed in the human mind. Moreover, in combination with the additional elements and steps of the abstract idea of claim 1, the added details of claim 11 imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and thus integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Although similar to claim 1, claim 12 adds the additional limitation of “receiving a training data request from a user equipment (UE)”, which is not capable of being performed in the human mind. Moreover, when viewed in combination with the claim as a whole, the limitation imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception/mental process, and thus integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
As per claims 17 and 26, although similar to claim 1, as opposed to the broad uploading limitation of claim 1, the additional limits on the reporting of the training data in claims 17 and 26, i.e., “…reporting training data between the UE, a UE vendor, and a network entity vendor based on performing the data collection procedure”, when viewed in combination with the claim as a whole, imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception/mental process, and thus integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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, 5, 11, 17-18, 21, 24-27, and 30, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O-RAN Working Group 2, "O-RAN non-RT RIC: Functional architecture 1.01," O-RAN.WG2.Non-RT-RIC-ARCH-TR-v01.01 Technical Report, June 2021 (“O-RAN”) in further in view of over VIVO: "Discussion on Solutions of Mobility Optimization", 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 Meeting #114bis, R3-220904, 17-25 January 2022 (Cite No. 4, in Applicant’s 08/27/2024 IDS) (“R3-229004”), in further view of Wu (US 2018/0027439)(“Wu”).
As per claim 1, O-RAN teaches a method of wireless communication for a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving a training data request from a UE vendor (see §3.1.4, pp. 21, i.e., “The Human-Machine termination converts external messages from technicians to internal message formats used by the training host and/or rApps. External messages include AI/ML training configuration, reporting configuration/request, and human commands on AI/ML training operation (e.g., terminating/initiating a training process, publishing a trained model, etc.)”, which anticipates receiving a training data request from a technician/UE vendor);
transmitting the training data request to a network entity (see for example, §3.4.3.3, i.e., “The Non-RT RIC Framework determines whether the requested data is already locally available, or if (as in the case of RAN data) it needs to interact with an external data source (perhaps via the SMO) to obtain that data)”, which anticipates interacting with a network entity to obtain RAN data. Furthermore see §A.2.1, pp. 35-36, which expressly describes the type of data that to be configured/reported may include data from specific UEs, i.e., “At some point after the data registration interactions, rApp “R” would initiate a formal “subscription” request with specific “scope” information (including the specific UEs or a class thereof from which to collect that input)…”); … and
uploading one or more data to the UE vendor based on performing the data collection procedure (see §3.1.4, i.e., “The Human-Machine termination receives AI/ML training status reports from rApps and/or the training host, and it forwards the status report to technicians”).
As per claim 1, O-RAN, however, does not expressly teach the steps of “receiving a data collection configuration message from the network entity in response to transmitting the training data request;
transmitting a data collection configuration acknowledgement (ACK) to the network entity in response to receiving the data collection configuration message;
performing a data collection procedure based on the data collection configuration message.”
Nevertheless, first, in the same art of RAN data collection, R3-229004 teaches a protocol for collecting RAN data from UEs including: receiving a data collection configuration message from a network entity (e.g., NG-RAN node 1, see Fig. 1, pp. 2) and performing a data collection procedure based on the data collection configuration message (i.e., data collection, see Fig. 1, pp. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of O-RAN with the teachings of R3-229004. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate the collection of data from specific UEs by the rAPPs, as configured by the technicians/UE vendors in O-RAN (see §A.2.1, pp. 35-36).
Secondly, the combination of O-RAN and R3-229004 does not expressly teach transmitting a data collection configuration acknowledgement (ACK) to the network entity/RAN node in response to receiving the data collection configuration message.
Nevertheless, sending an acknowledgement message by a UE in response to a receiving a control/measurement message from a base station/network entity was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example Wu, ¶0342, “After the configuration is finished, the UE sends a measurement control acknowledgement message to the eNB.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to similarly send a data collection configuration acknowledgement (ACK) to the network entity/RAN node in response to receiving the data collection configuration message by the specific UE(s). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide appropriate feedback to the RAN node regarding the reception of the data collection configuration message by the specific UE(s) in the combination of O-RAN and R3-229004.
As per claim 5, although the combination of O-RAN and R3-229004 does not expressly teach wherein receiving the data collection configuration message further comprises receiving the data collection configuration message as at least one of information elements in a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message or a new signaling procedure.
Nevertheless, receiving configuration messages for data collection/reporting through at least one of information elements in a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example Wu, ¶0197, i.e., “the measurement control message may be an RRC connection reconfiguration message”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize information elements in a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message for signaling the measurement configuration in R3-220904. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of existing 3GPP messaging structures for data collection/reporting.
As per claim 11, the combination of O-RAN and R3-229004 does not expressly teach wherein performing the data collection procedure further comprises: receiving a reference signal (RS) from the network entity in response to transmitting the data collection configuration ACK; and performing one or more measurements based on the RS.
Nevertheless, in the same art of UE configuration measurement/reporting, Wu further teaches performing the data collection procedure further comprises: receiving a reference signal (RS) from the network entity in response to transmitting the data collection configuration ACK; and performing one or more measurements based on the RS (see Fig. 12A, ref. S1205, and ¶0345, where impliedly, following the configuration ACK, a reference signal is sent to the UE by the eNB to derive RSRP/RSPQ measurements).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to similarly perform RSRP/RSRQ measurements by the UE. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been for purposes of measuring/reporting signal strength/quality.
As per claim 17, R3-229004 teaches a method of wireless communication for a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving a data collection configuration message (i.e., “1. Measurement configuration”) from a network entity (i.e., “NG-RAN node 1”) based on a training data request (i.e., “0. Data collection request”)(see Fig. 5.3-3, pp. 5);
performing a data collection procedure based on the data collection configuration message (i.e., “Step 2. The UE collects the indicated measurement”, see pp. 5); and
reporting training data between the network entity (see “Measurement report”, Fig. 5.3-3, pp. 5), …, and a network entity vendor (i.e., OAM, see “data collection response”) based on performing the data collection procedure (see Fig. 5.3-3, pp. 5).
As per claim 17, R3-229004 fails to teach the reporting the training data also with a UE vendor.
Nevertheless, in the same art of network data training/collection management, O-RAN teaches uploading data collected from a RAN/UE to a technician/UE vendor (see §3.1.4, i.e., “The Human-Machine termination receives AI/ML training status reports from rApps and/or the training host, and it forwards the status report to technicians”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of R3-229004 with the teachings of O-RAN for further uploading data collected from a RAN/UE to a technician/UE vendor. Similar to the benefits of having an open and standard interface to expose SMO framework functionalities with third-parties/UE vendors (see O-RAN, pp. 10, lines 16-19), the obvious motivation for exposing OAM functionality including the data collection as taught by R3-229004 (see Fig. 5.3-3, pp. 5) to third parties/UE vendors would have been to meet various business needs and/or use cases.
Secondly, the combination of O-RAN and R3-229004 does not expressly teach transmitting a data collection configuration acknowledgement (ACK) to the network entity/RAN node in response to receiving the data collection configuration message.
Nevertheless, sending an acknowledgement message by a UE in response to a receiving a control/measurement message from a base station/network entity was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example Wu, ¶0342, “After the configuration is finished, the UE sends a measurement control acknowledgement message to the eNB.”).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining O-RAN, R3-229004, and Wu, in claim 1 applies equally well to claim 17.
As per claim 18, R3-229004 does not expressly teach wherein reporting training data further comprises reporting the training data using at least one of … vendor-to-vendor.
Nevertheless, in the same art as noted above O-RAN teaches reporting UE/RAN training data between an SMO (which is impliedly associated with a network vendor) and technicians/UE vendors, read as vendor-to-vendor reporting (see §3.1.4, i.e., “The Human-Machine termination receives AI/ML training status reports from rApps and/or the training host, and it forwards the status report to technicians”).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining O-RAN, R3-229004, and Wu, in claim 17 applies equally well to claim 18.
As per claim 21, R3-229004 does not expressly teach, however, in the same art as noted above O-RAN further teaches wherein reporting the training data using the vendor-to-vendor includes reporting the training data to the UE vendor (see §3.1.4, i.e., “The Human-Machine termination receives AI/ML training status reports from rApps and/or the training host, and it forwards the status report to technicians”).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining O-RAN, R3-229004, and Wu, in claim 17 applies equally well to claim 21.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 5 and 11, respectively, since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Claims 26-27, and 30 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 17, 18 and 25, respectively, since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Claims 2, 3, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O-RAN, R3-229004”), and Wu, in further view of Zeng et al. (US 2023/0209390)(“Zeng”).
As per claim 2, the combination of O-RAN, R3-229004, and Wu fails to teach wherein the data collection configuration message includes a reference signal (RS) list for data collection, an area for data collection, a period for data collection, network side configuration, channel type, and a process identification (ID) on data collection.
Nevertheless, in the same art of sending configuration information to UE for AI/ML purposes, Zeng teaches a data collection configuration message (i.e., task configuration information message, see ¶0357) including, inter alia, a reference signal (RS) list for data collection (i.e., “data measurement types”, including RSSI and the like, Id.), an area for data collection (i.e., “an area corresponding to the measurement”, Id.), a period for data collection (i.e., “periodic reporting”, Id.), network side configuration (e.g., “a random access channel (random access channel, RACH) configuration of a cell”, Id.), channel type (e.g., “cell/beam”, Id.), and a process identification (ID) on data collection (i.e., “task ID”, Id.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the data collection configuration message of R3-229004 with the configuration parameters describes in Zeng. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to support data collection/training of various ML/AI models.
As per claim 3, the combination of O-RAN, R3-229004, and Wu fails to teach wherein the process ID corresponds to a model ID registered with a machine learning function (MLLF).
Nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Zeng further teaches wherein the process ID (i.e., task ID) corresponds to a model ID (i.e., model information) registered with a machine learning function (MLLF) (i.e., AIP module, see ¶0239, i.e., “The first submodule of the AIP module is configured to store model information of one or more models” also see ¶0282, i.e., “The AIPM module is configured to manage one or more of the following AI procedures of the application in the AIA module in the nrt-RIC module: data collection, model training, model downloading, model publishing, inference, and inference result publishing.”).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining O-RAN, R3-229004, Wu, and Zeng in claim 2 applies equally well to claim 3.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 2-3 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O-RAN, R3-229004, Wu, and Zeng in further view of Li et al. (US 2025/0220471)(“Li”).
As per claim 4, the combination of O-RAN, R3-229004, Wu, and Zeng does not expressly teach generating a meta-ID for data uploading corresponding to one or more metadata based on the process ID.
Nevertheless, utilizing a label (e.g., meta-ID) to identify information for AI/ML training purposes was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example, Li ¶0133, e.g., “the UE 904 can obtain the one or more parameters (e.g., by performing the one or more measurements) and associate the obtained data to a certain label…”, which is further supported in ¶0030 of provisional application 63/324917, with a filing date of Mar. 29, 2022).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to generate a label (e.g., meta-ID) for data uploading corresponding to one or more metadata based on the process ID. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been for data identification purposes and/or to support supervised learning.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O-RAN, R3-229004, and Wu in further view of Bhushan et al. (US 2010/0099428)(“Bhushan”) and Li.
As per claim 6, the combination of O-RAN, R3-229004, and Wu does not expressly teach where the one or more data corresponds to a UE report including a downlink raw channel matrix and a metadata identification (meta-ID).
Nevertheless, in the same art of UE reporting, Bhushan teaches reporting by a UE a raw channel matrix (e.g., the channel matrix H for each potential serving cell) to the network (see ¶0075).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings O-RAN, R3-229004, and Wu with the teachings of Bushan for configuring the UE to report downlink raw channel matrix. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to use the downlink raw channel matrix for various purposes such as scheduling, rate selection, etc. (see Bushan, ¶0076).
Finally, although the teachings O-RAN, R3-229004, Wu and Bushan fails to teach reporting a meta-ID together with the raw downlink channel information, utilizing a label (e.g., meta-ID) to identify information for AI/ML training purposes was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example, Li ¶0133, e.g., “the UE 904 can obtain the one or more parameters (e.g., by performing the one or more measurements) and associate the obtained data to a certain label…”, which is further supported in ¶0030 of provisional application 63/324917, with a filing date of Mar. 29, 2022).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to assign a label (e.g., meta-ID) to the reported downlink raw channel matrix. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been for data identification purposes and/or to support supervised learning.
Claims 19 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O-RAN, R3-229004, and Wu in further view of ETSI, Universal Mobile Telecommunications Systems (UMTS); LTE; Study on improving streaming Quality of Experience (QOE) reporting in 3GPP services and networks (3GPP TR 26.909 version 14.0.0 Release 14), ETSI TR 126 909 V14.0.0, Apr. 2017 (“ETSI TR 126 909”).
As per claim 19, although R3-229004 further teaches … transmitting the training data to the network entity (see Step 2, pp. 5), R3-229004 does not expressly teach reporting the training data using the MDT enhancement.
Nevertheless, MDT enhancement for UE reporting was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example ETSI TR 126 909, §5.6.1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of R3-229004 for report UE measurements using MDT enhancement. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to support QoE reporting.
As per claim 28, although R3-229004 further teaches … wherein reporting the training data … includes: receiving the training data from the UE (see Step 2, pp. 5); and forwarding the training data to the network entity vendor (i.e., OAM, see Step 3), R3-229004 does not expressly teach reporting the training data using the MDT enhancement.
Nevertheless, MDT enhancement for UE reporting was well known in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example ETSI TR 126 909, §5.6.1).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining O-RAN, R3-229004, Wu, and ETSI TR 126 909 in claim 19 applies equally well to claim 28.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 (as interpreted by the Examiner, see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, with respect to claim 16) are allowed over the prior art.
Claims 7-10, 20, and 29 are 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not teach or render obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, in the specific combinations and manner recited within the claims, the features of:
as per claim 7, “…wherein the downlink raw channel matrix corresponds to a channel estimation based on a resource block (RB) index, port index, and receiver index”;
as per claims 8-9, “…wherein the meta-ID includes a data package ID, a cell/carrier ID, a channel status information (CSI) reference signal (RS) resource ID, a list of one or more records, and a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)”;
as per claim 10, “…wherein a format of the UE report including the downlink raw channel matrix corresponds to a frequency domain resolution and Eigen directions of the downlink raw channel matrix”;
as per claims 12-15, “…receiving a training data request from a user equipment (UE); transmitting a data collection configuration message to the UE in response to receiving the training data request; receiving a data collection configuration acknowledgement (ACK) from the UE in response to transmitting the data collection configuration message; and performing a data collection procedure based on the data collection configuration message”;
as per claim 20, “…wherein reporting the training data using the vendor-UE-vendor includes: reporting the training data to the UE vendor; and transmitting data or a data address report to the network entity”; and
as per claim 29, “…wherein reporting the training data using the vendor-UE-vendor includes: receiving data or a data address report from the UE; and forwarding the data or the data address report to the network entity vendor.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brendan Higa whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, James Hwang can be reached at (571) 272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights