DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10, 12-13, 15-17 and 20 have been amended. examined and are pending.
Claims 3-4, 8-9, 11 and 18-19 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10, 12-17 and 20 have been examined and are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite transmitting, by a terminal device, a first request for first information, receiving the first information from a core network element, and specifying that the first request is transmitted to a Data Collection Application Function (DCAF) which generates a second request to the core network element, with the requests carrying identifiers (internal and external) for a network data analysis service.
The limitations of transmitting a request, receiving information, and carrying identifiers for a network data analysis service, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass organizing and transmitting information between known network components. But for the recitation of generic computer/network elements (terminal device, DCAF, core network element), nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed as a purely abstract process of information exchange and routing. For example, “transmitting” and “receiving” in the context of these claims encompass the abstract concept of requesting and obtaining information, which could be performed manually or mentally but for the recitation of generic network elements. Similarly, “carrying identifiers” in a request is simply the inclusion of information in a message, which is a basic information organization activity.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or through generic communication channels but for the recitation of generic computer/network components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite additional elements — use of a terminal device, DCAF, and core network element — to perform the transmitting, receiving, and identifier-handling steps. These components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic network elements performing generic functions of sending, receiving, and processing identifiers) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/network components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements of using a terminal device, DCAF, and core network element to perform the transmitting, receiving, and identifier-handling steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/network components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer/network components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 2, 5 – 7, 12 – 13, 15 – 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0047564 to Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang discloses (¶1) techniques and apparatuses for user equipment reception of network assisted information, which further includes:
wireless communication (Zhang discloses (¶1) wireless communications) method, comprising:
transmitting, by a terminal device, a first request (Zhang discloses (¶79) a UE may request from a network node e.g., a network data analytics function, NWDAF, or a data collection coordination function, DCCF) wherein the first request is used to request first information (Zhang discloses (¶80) the request including an analytics identification, an ML model identification, and/or an area of interest) and
receiving, by the terminal device, the first information transmitted by a first core network element (Zhang discloses (¶80) the first core network element i.e. NWDAF or the DCCF, may provide the ML model and/or the analytics to the UE based at least in part on the request),
wherein the first information comprises an analysis result of a first network data analysis service (Zhang discloses (¶85-¶86) the NWDAF or the DCCF provide via a user plane communication to the UE with network assisted information such as analytics being associated (¶10, ¶74) with an application layer communication that is associated with the UE, or the generated analytics are associated with one or more communication links supported by the network node (e.g., the ML model or the analytics) associated with network performance. The UE may use the network assisted information to make informed connection decisions and to conserve communication, network, power, and/or computing resources)
wherein the first request is transmitted to a first data collection application function (DCAF) (Zhang discloses (¶80) the UE may send the request via a DCAF, with the request including an analytics identification, an ML model identification, and/or an area of interest)
wherein the first request is used by the first DCAF to generate a second request, and the second request is transmitted by the first DCAF to the first core network element (Zhang discloses (Fig. 5 and ¶95) as shown by reference number 525, the first network node (e.g., a DCAF) provide the request for the ML model and/or analytics as received from the UE, or the first network node (e.g., a DCAF) provide the request for the ML model and/or analytics with modifications to the ML model and/or analytics as received from the UE. For example, the first network node (e.g., a DCAF) may modify the request and provide one or more additional parameters and/or information elements (e.g., an indication of the SUPI) and/or one or more fewer parameters and/or information elements (e.g., a UE IP address) to the second network node e.g., an NWDAF or a DCCF)
wherein the first request carries a first identifier of the first network data analysis service (Zhang discloses (¶77) UE application may be configured per application identification with an address of the AF to contact), and the first identifier is an external analysis identifier (Zhang discloses (¶76) application function (AF) of the ASP i.e. an external entity with which UE application is to communicate), the second request carries a second identifier of the first network data analysis service, and the first identifier is an internal analysis identifier (Zhang discloses (¶80) the NWDAF or the DCCF may provide the ML model and/or the analytics (i.e. internal analysis identifier) to the UE via the DCAF based at least in part on the request. Zhang discloses (¶82) a request from DCAF provides the identifier (i.e. ML model identification, analytics identification, registration area, and/or slide identification) to a network repository function (NRF), and the NRF reply by providing an indication of the NWDAF identification or the DCCF identification to the DCAF which provide (¶85) the ML model or the analytics to the UE.)
Claim 2, Zhang discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, it discloses:
wherein the first request carries one or more of following information: a request type of the first request (Zhang discloses (¶79) UE request is of particular type, i.e. it request ML models or the analytics) a first identifier of the first network data analysis service (Zhang discloses (¶77) UE application may be configured by the ASP with the application identification to use in communication with the AF, parameters that the UE application is authorized to provide to the AF, and/or the authenticity information that enables the AF to verify authenticity of the AF that requests data)
an analysis condition of the first network data analysis service (Zhang discloses (¶81) the request may indicate a registration area identification, a slide identification, an event filter e.g., indicate a report threshold, report frequency, report time interval, and/or report expiration time)
or an identity of the terminal device (Zhang discloses (¶83) a UE internet protocol (IP) address of the UE is mapped to a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) to match the UE to the ML model and/or the analytics, and DCAF may provide the SUPI or indicate the UE IP address in the request to the NWDAF along with the request for the ML model and/or the analytics)
or if the first information comprises a monitoring result of a first event (Zhang discloses (¶80) the first core network element i.e. NWDAF or the DCCF, provide the analytics to the UE based on the request (¶81) and based on an event filter e.g., indicate a report threshold, report frequency, report time interval, and/or report expiration time)
the first request carries one or more of following information: a request type of the first request (Zhang discloses (¶79) UE request is of particular type, i.e. it request ML models or the analytics)
an event trigger identifier of the first event (Zhang discloses (¶81) the request may indicate a registration area identification, a slide identification, an event filter e.g., indicate a report threshold, report frequency, report time interval, and/or report expiration time)
or an identity of the terminal device (Zhang discloses (¶83) a UE internet protocol (IP) address of the UE is mapped to a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) to match the UE to the ML model and/or the analytics, and DCAF may provide the SUPI or indicate the UE IP address in the request to the NWDAF along with the request for the ML model and/or the analytics.)
Claim 5, Zhang discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, it discloses:
wherein the receiving, by the terminal device, the first information transmitted by a first core network element (Zhang discloses (¶80-¶81) the core network element i.e. NWDAF or the DCCF, provide the analytics to the UE based on the request) comprises: receiving, by the terminal device by using the first DCAF, the first information transmitted by the first core network element (Zhang discloses (¶103) based at least in part on the DCAF obtaining the ML model or the analytics from the NWDAF or the DCCF, the DCAF may provide the UE with network assisted information (e.g., the ML model or the analytics) associated with network performance.)
Claim 6, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 7, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 12, Zhang discloses all the elements of claim 6. Further, it discloses:
wherein the first request is transmitted by the terminal device to the first DCAF by using a first application service provider (ASP) (Zhang discloses (¶76) an application service provider (ASP) associated with the application server. For each application identification in use by the ASP, an application function (AF) of the ASP (e.g., the DCAF) with which a UE application is to communicate, information that the UE application shares with the AF, authentication information that enables the AF to verify authenticity of the UE application that provides data, and/or possible data anonymization, aggregation, or normalization algorithms for providing the data for ML and analytics).
Claim 13, Zhang discloses all the elements of claim 6. Further, it discloses:
wherein the receiving, by the terminal device, the first information transmitted by a first core network element (Zhang discloses (¶80-¶81) the core network element i.e. NWDAF or the DCCF, provide the analytics to the UE based on the request) comprises: receiving, by the terminal device by using the first DCAF, the first information transmitted by the first core network element (Zhang discloses (¶103) based at least in part on the DCAF obtaining the ML model or the analytics from the NWDAF or the DCCF, the DCAF may provide the UE with network assisted information (e.g., the ML model or the analytics) associated with network performance.)
Claim 15, Zhang discloses all the elements of claim 6. Further, it discloses:
wherein the terminal device communicates with the first DCAF by using an application connection of a user plane (Zhang discloses (¶81) the UE may transmit the request using hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) signaling via a user plane connection (e.g., with the DCAF).
Claim 16, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 17, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 18, (Cancelled).
Claim 19, (Cancelled).
Claim 20, Zhang discloses all the elements of claim 16. Further, it discloses:
transmitting, by the first core network element, the first information to the terminal device (Zhang discloses (¶80-¶81) the core network element i.e. NWDAF or the DCCF, provide the analytics to the UE based on the request) comprises: transmitting, by the first core network element, the first information to the terminal device by using the first DCAF (Zhang discloses (¶103) based at least in part on the DCAF obtaining the ML model or the analytics from the NWDAF or the DCCF, the DCAF may provide the UE with network assisted information e.g., the ML model or the analytics).
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0047564 to Zhang and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0124160 to Shariat.
Claim 10, Zhang discloses all the elements of claim 6. Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the second identifier is converted by the first DCAF or a first network exposure function (NEF) based on the first identifier. However, in an analogous art, Shariat teaches:
wherein the second identifier is converted by the first DCAF or a first network exposure function (NEF) based on the first identifier (Shariat teaches (¶50 – ¶60) network exposure function (NEF) translating SUPI to UE IP address (¶53) and translating the internal SUPI (i.e., second identifier) as per the corresponding UE IP address (i.e., first identifier). NEF forms and stores a mapping table based on step 34 that translates a SUPI to a UE IP address and vice).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine wherein if the first request carries the first identifier, and the first identifier is an external analysis identifier, a second identifier of the first network data analysis service that is carried in the second request is an internal analysis identifier, as disclosed by Zhang, and wherein the second identifier is converted by the first DCAF or a first network exposure function (NEF) based on the first identifier, as taught by Shariat, for the purpose of implementing (¶2) improvements in application function (AF) discovery and event exposure.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0047564 to Zhang and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0283714 to Pan et al. (hereinafter Pan).
Claim 14, Zhang discloses all the elements of claim 9. Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the second identifier is converted by the first DCAF or a first network exposure function (NEF) based on the first identifier. However, in an analogous art, Pan teaches:
wherein the first information is transmitted by the first DCAF to the terminal device by using a second application service provider (ASP) (Pan teaches (Fig. 2) data transfer between the UE, the DCAF and the ASP using the R1-R8 communication interfaces. Pan teaches (¶98 – ¶104) a service provisioning application function (AF) in the application service provider (ASP) indirectly interacts with the DCAF via R1, R3 and R6, to enable the data collection and reporting function. Then, the DCAF generates data collection and reporting configuration information, send the data collection and reporting configuration information to a data collection client side (including a direct data collection client (Direct Data Collection Client, DDCC), an indirect data collection client (Indirect Data Collection Client, IDCC), and an application server (Application Server, AS)), and receive a data collection report reported by the data collection client. Then, the DCAF processes data in the data collection report, for example, performs format conversion, data anonymization, and data aggregation, and sends, based on a subscription request from another network element, and processes the UE-side data).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine wherein if the first request carries the first identifier, and the first identifier is an external analysis identifier, a second identifier of the first network data analysis service that is carried in the second request is an internal analysis identifier, as disclosed by Zhang, and wherein the first information is transmitted by the first DCAF to the terminal device by using a second application service provider (ASP), as taught by Pan, for the purpose of implementing (¶4) data collection method and a communication apparatus, to implement collection of per-slice terminal device-side data.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 03/05/2026 with respect to the Claims 1-20 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive. Hence, the 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument (Page 7) stating claim 1 is “not directed to a mental process” because it recites a “specific network-architecture-controlled signaling procedure in a 3GPP core network context,” including identifier conversion between external and internal analytics identifiers, and that such steps cannot be performed in the human mind, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of transmitting a request, receiving information, and converting identifiers constitute steps of collecting, processing, and transmitting information. Such steps fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The claim does not recite a technological improvement to network architecture or protocol beyond the generic use of known network components (terminal device, DCAF, core network element) to perform these steps.
While applicant asserts that the identifier conversion cannot be performed mentally, the claim language does not require a specific technical implementation of the conversion; rather, it generically recites that the first request carries an external identifier and the second request carries an internal identifier. This is essentially information mapping or translation, which is a form of data processing that can be performed mentally or abstractly, but here is implemented using generic network elements. The recited network context does not, by itself, remove the claim from the abstract idea category.
In response to applicant’s argument (Page 7) stating even if the claim recites a judicial exception, it integrates the concept into a practical application by requiring a specific network message flow and identifier conversion mechanism that improves operation of a communications system, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed “network message flow” consists of transmitting a request from a terminal device to a DCAF, generating a second request, and transmitting the second request to a core network element. Such message flows are generic network operations that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. The claim does not recite any improvement to how the network transmits messages, processes identifiers, or performs analytics; instead, it merely applies the abstract idea of information exchange and identifier translation in the context of a generic network.
The identifier conversion is recited at a functional level without specifying a novel algorithm, data structure, or protocol that improves network performance. The claim does not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea beyond applying it in the context of known network components. As such, these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer/network environment, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In response to applicant’s argument (Page 8) stating the additional limitation is not merely generic "do it on a computer," but instead is a specific network mechanism for privacy- preserving and controlled access to network analytics, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim language does not require encryption, anonymization, access control, or any other concrete privacy-preserving feature. Without such specifics, the alleged benefits are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The additional elements of terminal device, DCAF, core network element, are generic computer/network components performing conventional functions of transmitting, receiving, and processing requests. As such, they do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 03/05/2026 with respect to the Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10, 12-17 and 20 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive. Hence, the 35 USC § 102 rejection is maintained.
In response to the applicant’s argument, (Pg. 9), “… Zhang fails to disclose the first network data analysis service,” the Examiner notes Zhang clearly discloses (¶80) the NWDAF or the DCCF provide the ML model and/or the analytics to the UE based on the request. These analytics may be associated with an application layer communication associated with the UE (¶41), or the analytics may be related to network analytics, network slice instance load statistics and/or service experience prediction (¶79).
In response to the applicant’s argument, (Pgs. 9 and 10 and 11), “… the first network data analysis service can be identified by the first identifier or the second identifier, which is not disclosed by Zhang … application identification for a UE application of Zhang is not equivalent to the first identifier of the first network data analysis service … Zhang fails to discuss a network data analysis service and fails to discuss any identifier of a network data analysis service and thus cannot disclose converting between the external and internal identifiers of the network data analysis service … conversion of an external analysis identifier for a network data analysis service into an internal analysis identifier, which is a different kind of identifier conversion from the UE identifier conversion disclosed by Zhang, and leads to a different purpose of protecting or abstracting the network data analysis service identity from untrusted intermediate entities, while still enabling subscription/request using an internal analytics identifier,” the Examiner notes Zhang clearly discloses (¶82) DCAF providing the various types of identifiers (i.e. ML model identification, analytics identification, registration area, and/or slide identification) to a network repository function (NRF), and in reply the NRF provides indication of the NWDAF or the DCCF which provides (¶85) the associated application layer analytics (¶41), or the network analytics (¶79) to the UE. Moreover, to address the external/internal identifier conversion limitation for the protection from untrusted entities, the Zhang reference clearly discloses (in ¶78), the DCAF may have sensitive data that should not be released to unauthorized UEs. Therefore, networks may not release the ML models and/or analytics, to prevent unauthorized access to the sensitive information. Hence, Zhang discloses the conversion of identifiers for the privacy protection of the user, and further discloses (¶95) the first network node (e.g., a DCAF) may modify the request and provide one or more additional parameters and/or information elements (e.g., an indication of the SUPI) and/or one or more fewer parameters and/or information elements (e.g., a UE IP address) to the second network node e.g., an NWDAF or a DCCF, and in reply receives (¶41 or ¶79) the associated application layer analytics, or the network analytics, at the UE.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN ABDUR-RAHMAN KHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-6574. The examiner can normally be reached TEAPP - (M-Sa) 9/30/17-9/30/18, 6am-10pm IFP.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at (571) 272-8328. 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.
/H. A. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights