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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Zheng et al. for the "DYNAMIC IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIFIED DATA STORAGE FUNCTION-BASED DATA RETRIEVAL FOR USER EQUIPMENT IN EXTENDED DISCONTINUOUS RECEPTION AND MOBILE INITIATED CONNECTION ONLY MODES" filed 09/18/2024 has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 4, 11, 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 11, 18 recite the limitation “CM_connected state” on lines 3. The term "CM_connected” state is not defined by the claims, does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what constitutes such “CM_connected state” are or what is involved in determining the connectivity parameter references related to the UE comprises. Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
7. Claims 1-2, 7-9, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US#11,425,762) in view of Yang et al. (US#11,316,923).
Regarding claim 1, the references disclose a method and device for search and retrieve operation of data which is stored in a storage entity such as a UDSF, according to the essential features of the claim. Li et al. (US#11,425,762) discloses an apparatus, comprising: a memory operable to store: one or more access commands comprising guidelines to establish one or more communication links; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory (see Fig. 29; Col. 36, lines 4-24 for the structure of the system device includes processor 118 and memory 130 – where a communication with the UE is established) and configured to: communicate a request to deliver downlink data to one or more user devices in one or more communication operations (Fig. 14; Col. 15, lines 37-52: see step '0 – Downlink Data': in step 0, the SCS/AS generates the downlink data and sends the data to the UPF, which serves as the anchor point); associate the request to deliver the downlink data a unified data storage function (UDSF)(Fig.14; Col. 16, lines 4-13: in step 2 – based on the DL data notification from the UPF, the SMF selects a UDSF and possibly a location within the UDSF for buffering the downlink data for the UE); determine whether a communication link is established between one or more network components hosting the UDSF and the one or more user devices based at least in part upon the one or more access commands (Col. 15, lines 26-35: buffering downlink data at a Data Storage Function (DSF) when the network obtains an amount of downlink data for a UE, while the UE is in CM-IDLE state e.g., sleeping mode or PSM or in a forbidden area); in response to determining that the communication link is not established between the one or more network components hosting the UDSF (Fig. 14; Col. 15, lines 54-59: in step 1 - since the UE is in IDLE state, there is no active connection between UE and AMF, thus no active PDU session) and the one or more user devices in accordance with the one or more access commands, cache the downlink data in the UDSF (Fig. 14, Col. 16, lines 17-38: in step 4 – Data Buffering Req': 'the UPF sends data buffering request to the selected UDSF and In step 5, the UDSF responds the UPF to confirm that it stored the downlink data for the UE.'); and in response to determining that the communication link is established between the one or more network components hosting the UDSF and the one or more user devices in accordance with the one or more access commands, transmit the downlink data to the one or more user devices (Fig. 14, Col. 16, lines 43-61: see steps 8 to 11 -'Downlink Data' & 'in step 11, the UPF sends the downlink data to the UE via RAN over the established PDU session').
Althought, Li reference does not disclose expressly wherein one or more network components hosting the UDSF and the one or more user devices. However, as illustrated in Fig. 18 how the 5G Core Network Architecture may be enhanced to support in-network storage of data from IoT devices. Enhancements are introduced to enable UEs to store data in a DSF and to enable Data Consumers to retrieve the stored data from the DSF (Col. 3; lines 56-67 & Col. 19, lines 21-67: Data Fetch Path Option 1 with a simplified path over a NEF between a UE and Data Storage Function). In the same field of endeavor, Yang et al. (US#11,316,923) teaches in Figs. 2-6 diagrams illustrated method for providing UDSF services in a telecommunications network, in which the SMF1 20 receives the address of the UDSF 12 in the message 104 and issues a request 106 to perform a data operation involving first data associated with an identified UE and an identified NF. The data operation may be a service provided by the UDSF 12, and making a request to perform such a data operation may also be referred to as invoking a service provided by the UDSF 12 (Col. 8, line 54 to Col. 12, line 64: providing UDSF services in a telecommunications network, such as a Fifth Generation (5G) Core network).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed the invention to combine Yang’s systems and methods for providing UDSF services in a telecommunications network into Li’s techniques and apparatuses for downlink data buffering at a UDSF without roaming with the motivation being to provide a method and device for search and retrieve operation of data which is stored in a storage entity such as a UDSF.
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Li et al. (US#11,425,762) further teaches wherein the DL data comprises mobile terminal DL data (see Fig. 13, Col. 14, lines 30-35: UE to receive MT non IP-data).
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Yang teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Li et al. (US#11,425,762) further teaches wherein the one or more UE configured to perform IoT operations (Fig. 18; Col. 19, lines 21-30: support in-network storage of data from IoT devices).
Regarding claims 8, 9,14, they are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 1, 2, 7 examined above. Therefore, claims 8, 9, 14 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed in paragraph above with respect to claims 1, 2, 7.
Regarding claims 15-16, these claims differ from claims Li et al. (US#11,425,762) in view of Yang et al. (US#11,316,923) in that the claims recited a computer program product for performing the same basis of steps and apparatus of the prior arts as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-2 examined above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a computer program product in Li in view of Yang for performing the steps and apparatus as recited in the claims with the motivation being to provide the efficient enhancement to UDSF-based data retrieval for UE, and easy to maintenance, upgrade.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 3, 10, 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112 paragraph as set forth above, and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-6, 11-13 & 18-20 depend on the objected claims above.
9. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein in conjunction with caching the downlink data in the UDSF, generate an availability request to perform the one or more communication operations with the one or more user devices; transmit the availability request to the one or more user devices; receive a response from the one or more user devices comprising a connectivity parameter referencing whether the one or more user devices are available to perform the one or more communication operations; and in response to receiving the response comprising the connectivity parameter referencing that the one or more user devices are available to perform the one or more communication operations, provide a cached version of the downlink data from the UDSF to the one or more user devices in accordance with the one or more communication operations, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Li et al. (US#11,696,158) network data analytics in a communications network.
The Shan (US#11,140,047) shows NWDAF influencing 5G QoS config and adjustment.
The Kim et al. (US#2026/0059583) shows terminal power management method.
The Kedalagudde et al. (US#11,930,474) shows selection of core network based on supported cellular IoT features
The Wu et al. (US#2026/0222235) information processing method & apparatus.
The Adriaanse et al. (US#12,177,092) AI driven 5G network and service management.
The Zheng et al. (US#2026/0122526) shows dynamic DL data delivery for user plane cellular IoT.
The Zheng et al. (US#2026/0082392) shows dynamic DL data delivery for control plane cellular IoT.
11. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
13. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
08/24/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights