DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 6/22/26, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued:
These baseline parameters are further described as "statistical properties of the data samples and/or statistical methods of manipulation of datasets and/or the mechanisms for forcing analytics output generation." See Marquezan, paragraph [0096]. These
parameters relate to data properties and statistical methods for analytics generation, not a request that includes analytics identifiers associated with specific NWDAFs, as in amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and cites to paragraphs [0186-0192] of Marquezan which state:
[0186] FIG. 7 illustrates an embodiment of the Operation Mode 2. In this embodiment: [0187] The NWDAF (NWDAF #1 and/or NWDAF #2) is/are the embodiment(s) of the network entity 200. [0188] The NEF is the embodiment of the entity 210. [0189] The NWDAF 200 may obtain the baseline parameters 202 in two ways: [0190] The NWDAF 200 may be configured with the mapping of the set(s) of baseline parameters 202 to be used per analytics type and/or per analytics consumer. [0191] The NWDAF 200 service operations for subscription/requests of analytics information may be extended with the set(s) of baseline parameters 202. In this way, the NEF 210 may request 401 the specific sets of the baseline parameters 202 for the analytics generation (of the requested analytics ID). [0192] During Step 6 of FIG. 7, the NWDAF 200 may check the received requested set of baseline parameters 202 from the NEF 210 with the configured baseline parameters 202 per analytics ID and/or analytics consumer. If the requested baseline parameters 202 are authorized and/or allowed, the NWDAF 200 may generate the analytics based on the requested set of baseline parameters 202 included in the input parameters of the extended NWDAF services, and may provide the analytics output 201 based on the set of baseline parameters 202. (Emphasis added).
It is clear from the above that Marquezan teaches a request that includes analytics identifiers associated with specific NWDAFs, as in amended claim 1. In Marquezan, Fig. 7 shows NWDAF #1 and/or NWDAF #2 and during Step 6 of FIG. 7, the NWDAF 200 may check the received requested set of baseline parameters 202 from the NEF 210 with the configured baseline parameters 202 per analytics ID and/or analytics consumer. Thus Marquezan teaches a request that includes analytics identifiers associated with specific NWDAFs.
Applicant further argued:
However, Marquezan does not disclose or suggest that the received "combined analytics response includes a combination of a first analytics response from the first NWDAF based on the first analytics identifier transmitted to the network entity in the analytics request and a second analytics response from the second NWDAF based on the second analytics identifier transmitted to the network entity in the analytics request," as in claim 1 (emphasis added).
For example, Marquezan states that "the first entity may obtain, e.g. from the second entity, a request for generation of an analytics output, and an indication that such a request is related to the AAP." See Marquezan at paragraph [0204]. The request in Marquezan relates to analytics output generation with AAP policies, not to analytics identifiers that are associated with different NWDAFs (e.g., a "first NWDAF" and a "second NWDAF"), as in amended claim 1.
The Examiner submits that Marquezan does indeed disclose, “combined analytics response includes a combination of a first analytics response from the first NWDAF based on the first analytics identifier transmitted to the network entity in the analytics request and a second analytics response from the second NWDAF based on the second analytics identifier transmitted to the network entity in the analytics request," as in claim 1. For instance, in paragraphs [0201, 0212 and 0229], Marquezan states:
[0201] In the following, further embodiments of the disclosure, applicable to the problem of generating a single analytics output 201 using the set of baseline parameters 202 from the analytics outputs of multiple NWDAF instances are described with respect to FIG. 9 and FIG. 10. (Emphasis added).
[0212] The analytics alignment policy (AAP) defines the mechanisms to map, process, compose field types and/or field values of multiple analytics outputs of the same type and/or from different analytics types into a single analytics output 201 that is provided to an analytics consumer (e.g., the entity 210). The multiple analytics outputs can be generated from the same and/or from multiple Analytics Functions (one or more network entities 200). (Emphasis added).
[0229] NF-Centric Embodiment. In particular, FIG. 10 shows the embodiment and service extensions in NFs of 5GS for the embodiment of the NF-Centric alternative: [0230] Any NF (e.g., NWDAF or NEF, or SMF, etc.) may be enhanced with the capability to operate with the coordination role and/or the AAP policies for the generation of single analytics output 201 based on the output of multiple Analytics Functions (e.g., NWDAFs 200, e.g. of one or more network entities 200). This is the case, for instance, of an NEF (as entity 210) operating with the AAP policy in order to aggregate, map, process into a single analytics output to be delivered to an AF, the multiple analytics outputs from multiple NWDAFs 200. (Emphasis added).
As shown herein, Marquezan discloses “combined analytics response includes a combination of a first analytics response from the first NWDAF based on the first analytics identifier transmitted to the network entity in the analytics request and a second analytics response from the second NWDAF based on the second analytics identifier transmitted to the network entity in the analytics request," (The analytics alignment policy (AAP) defines the mechanisms to map, process, compose field types and/or field values of multiple analytics outputs of the same type and/or from different analytics types into a single analytics output 201 that is provided to an analytics consumer… Any NF (e.g., NWDAF or NEF, or SMF, etc.) may be enhanced with the capability to operate with the coordination role and/or the AAP policies for the generation of single analytics output 201 based on the output of multiple Analytics Functions (e.g., NWDAFs 200, e.g. of one or more network entities 200). The request in Marquezan clearly relates to analytics identifiers that are associated with different NWDAFs (e.g., a "first NWDAF" and a "second NWDAF") as shown herein. Thus Marquezan teaches the claimed limitations.
The Examiner respectfully reminds applicant of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (See MPEP 2111), "During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.) In Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court further elaborated on the “broadest reasonable interpretation" standard and recognized that “The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction." Thus, when interpreting claims, the courts have held that Examiners should (1) interpret claim terms as broadly as their terms reasonably allows and (2) interpret claim phrases as broadly as their construction reasonably allows. In conclusion, upon taking the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the cited reference teaches all of the claimed limitations and the rejections are maintained as below.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/22/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,137,035 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of the claims has been withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-26 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marquezan et al. (2023/0069455).
As per claim 1, Marquezan et al. teaches a method of wireless communication at a consumer of a wireless communication system, comprising: transmitting an analytics request to a network entity of the wireless communication system, the analytics request including a first analytics identifier associated with a first network data analytics function (NWDAF) and a second analytics identifier associated with a second NWDAF [paragraphs 0005-0006 and 0186-0193 and fig. 7]; and
receiving, from the network entity, a combined analytics response to the analytics request, wherein the combined analytics response includes a combination of a first analytics response from the first NWDAF based on the first analytics identifier transmitted to the network entity in the analytics request and a second analytics response from the second NWDAF based on the second analytics identifier transmitted to the network entity in the analytics request [paragraphs 0108, 0200-0215, 0220 and 0229].
As per claim 2, Marquezan et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the analytics request further includes a location, and wherein the first analytics response and the second analytics response from the first NWDAF and the second NWDAF are further based on the location and an area supported by the first NWDAF and the second NWDAF [paragraph 0096].
As per claim 3, Marquezan et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the network entity comprises a central NWDAF [paragraph 0109].
As per claim 4, Marquezan et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the network entity comprises a network report function [paragraph 0119].
As per claim 5, Marquezan et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the consumer comprises one of: a core network entity, an application function, or an original equipment manufacturer [paragraph 0128].
Claims 6-10 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights