CTNF 18/905,104 CTNF 79542 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority The Instant Application, filed 10/02/2024, is a continuation of 17/911122, filed 09/12/2022, now U.S. Patent No. 12/137,035 which is a National Stage entry of PCT/CN2020/085875 with an international filing date of 04/21/2020. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 08-34 AIA Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,137,035 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by the reference claim(s). Claim 1 of the Patent contains every element of claim 16 of the instant application as shown in the table below and as such anticipate(s) the claim of the instant application. Claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale for reciting similar limitaitons . “A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by , the earlier claim. In re Longi , 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg , 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001). Instant Application Patent No. 12,137,035 16. A method of wireless communication at a network entity comprised in a wireless network, comprising: receiving, at the network entity, an analytics request from a consumer of the wireless network, the analytics request including a first analytics identifier and a second analytics identifier; determining a first network data analytics function (NWDAF) based on the first analytics identifier indicated in the analytics request and a second NWDAF based on the second analytics identifier indicated in the analytics request; forwarding, from the network entity, a request to multiple NWDAFs, including forwarding a first request to the first NWDAF based on the first analytics identifier indicated in the analytics request and forwarding a second request to the second NWDAF based on the second analytics identifier indicated in the analytics request; receiving multiple analytics responses including an analytics response from each of the multiple NWDAFs, including receiving a first analytics response from the first NWDAF and receiving a second analytics response from the second NWDAF; combining the multiple analytics responses into a combined analytics response based on a combination of the first analytics response that the network entity received from the first NWDAF and the second analytics response that the network entity received from the second NWDAF; and providing, to the consumer, the combined analytics response based on the combination of the first analytics response received from the first NWDAF and the second analytics response received from the second NWDAF. 1. A method of wireless communication at a network entity comprised in a wireless network, comprising: receiving, at the network entity, an analytics request from a consumer of the wireless network, the analytics request including a first analytics identifier and a second analytics identifier; determining a first network data analytics function (NWDAF) based on the first analytics identifier indicated in the analytics request and a second NWDAF based on the second analytics identifier indicated in the analytics request; forwarding, from the network entity, a request to multiple NWDAFs, including forwarding a first request to the first NWDAF based on the first analytics identifier indicated in the analytics request and forwarding a second request to the second NWDAF based on the second analytics identifier indicated in the analytics request; receiving multiple analytics responses including an analytics response from each of the multiple NWDAFs, including receiving a first analytics response from the first NWDAF and receiving a second analytics response from the second NWDAF; combining the multiple analytics responses into a combined analytics response, wherein the network entity provides the combined analytics response to the consumer based on a combination of the first analytics response that the network entity received from the first NWDAF and the second analytics response that the network entity received from the second NWDAF; and providing, to the consumer, the combined analytics response based on the combination of the first analytics response received from the first NWDAF and the second analytics response received from the second NWDAF . --- Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea ) without significantly more . Claim 1 is drawn to method (i.e., a process) and claim 6 is drawn to an apparatus (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1 and 6 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 and 6 merely recite the steps of sending a request and receiving a response. Specifically, the claims recite the steps of, sending an analytics request to a network entity of the wireless communication system, the analytics request including a first analytics identifier and a second analytics identifier; and receiving, from the network entity, a combined analytics response to the analytics request, wherein the combined analytics response includes a first analytics response from a first network data analytics function, NWDAF, based on the first analytics identifier included in the analytics request and a second analytics response from a second NWDAF based on the second analytics identifier included in the analytics request (Claim 1), which is grouped within Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of ( concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test ( See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea ( See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. , US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)). These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea with generic computer elements and these generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims fail to be patent eligible when analyzed under the prongs of step 2A and step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test ( See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 16-26 are allowed over the prior art of record. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA 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: sending an analytics request to a network entity of the wireless communication system, the analytics request including a first analytics identifier and a second analytics identifier [paragraphs 0005 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 first analytics response from a first network data analytics function, NWDAF, based on the first analytics identifier included in the analytics request and a second analytics response from a second NWDAF based on the second analytics identifier included in the analytics request [paragraphs 0200-0215] . 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 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 Application/Control Number: 18/905,104 Page 2 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 18/905,104 Page 3 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 18/905,104 Page 4 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 18/905,104 Page 5 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 18/905,104 Page 6 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 18/905,104 Page 7 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 18/905,104 Page 8 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 18/905,104 Page 9 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 18/905,104 Page 10 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 18/905,104 Page 11 Art Unit: 2444