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 Amendment
1. This action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 13 July 2026.
Claims 21-39 are presently pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicants’ arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues,
The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection against the copending application is invalid.
The combined references fail to disclose the claimed UE-side data collection and transmission.
The combined references fail to disclose the claimed client-side contact configuration.
In response to applicant’s argument,
A) The claimed subject/t matter in the instant application is not patentably distinct from copending application 18/007090 because both set of claims are directed to functional portions of the same disclosed user equipment, application function and network data analytics function data collection arrangement. The instant application discloses a UE executing client application configured with AF contact information and data collection information that collects UE specific data according to the collection parameters and transmit the collected data to the AF. This is exactly the same invention as that of 18/007090, except instead of NWDAF/AF side processing the collected data, UE-side apparatus is performing the operations. Thus, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting is rejection is appropriately valid.
B) First of all, it is important to establish that the applied prior art of record is utilized in an obvious-type rejection rather than an anticipation rejection. With that in mind, we turn to the teachings of Lee which discloses UE-specific data collection from an application function and transmission of the collected data to the NWDAF (see Lee ¶ [0030] and [0180]). The data collected by the UE is forwarded to the NWDAF which then performs analytics to the collected data (see Lee ¶ [0146]-[0147]). Therefore, the applied prior art of record indeed teaches UE-side data collection and transmission as currently recited in the claims.
C) Combined references indeed teach the claimed client-side contact configuration. In particular, Patil teaches UE-associated contact information and management which is maintained and used authorization of network service particularly where the client application requires contact information to control or authorize collection of UE data (see Patil, ¶ [0036]-[0038]). Therefore, the applied prior art of record meets the required scope of the claimed limitations are presently recited in the claims.
Applicant employs broad language, which includes the use of word, and phrases, which have broad meanings in the art. In addition, Applicant has not argued any narrower interpretation of the claim language, nor amended the claims significantly enough to construe a narrower meaning to the limitations. As the claims breadth allows multiple interpretations and meanings, which are broader than Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner is forced to interpret the claim limitations as broadly as reasonably possible, in determining patentability of the disclosed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir.1993).
Applicant has had an opportunity to amend the claimed subject matter, and has failed to modify the claim language to distinguish over the prior art of record by clarifying or substantially narrowing the claim language. Thus, Applicant apparently intends that a broad interpretation be given to the claims and the Examiner has adopted such in the present and previous Office action rejections. See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969), and MPEP 2111.
Double Patenting
3. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 30 and 31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21,31 and 38 of copending Application No. 18/007090. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to the same invention of user plane optimization using network data analytics. It would have been obvious to draft these new set of claims in light of the claims in 18/007090 in order to have variation of the earlier claims without presenting distinct invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0322775 in view of Patil et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0014141.
Lee disclose 21, a user equipment (UE) comprising a processor, communications circuitry connected to a wireless network, and a memory comprising instructions, wherein: the instructions comprise a client application involved in data collection (see Lee, ¶ [0005], [[0137] and [0249]; user equipment client application involved in data collection is provided); the client application is configured with data collection information comprising data collection parameters (see Lee, ¶ [0004] and [0107]; collected data parameters is provided); and the instructions, when executed by the processor and in accordance with the data collection parameters, cause the UE to: collect data pertaining to the UE (see Lee, ¶ [0118]-[0119] and [0146]; data pertaining to user equipment is collected); and send, to the AF over a user plane, the collected data with information selected from the data collection information (see Lee, ¶ [0071], [0127] and [0256]; collected data is transmitted).
Although Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose the client application is configured with contact information pertaining to an Application Function (AF).
Patil teaches the client application is configured with contact information pertaining to an Application Function (AF) (see Patil, ¶ [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Patil with that of Lee in order to efficiently the specific network element involved in the providing of the data collection.
Regarding claim 22, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the data collection parameters comprise: a type of data the UE is to collect, data associated with one or more analytics IDs and application IDs, a data collection frequency, and/or a reporting frequency (see Lee, ¶ [0063] and [0094]).
Regarding claim 23, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the data collection information comprises: a processing requirement, an expiration time for the collected data, a timestamp of the data collection, and/or a correlation identifier that associates the collected data with the UE (see Lee, ¶ [0107] and [0253]).
Regarding claim 24, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the collected data comprises: a battery level, a battery discharge rate, a battery discharge history, a battery health, a Discontinuous Reception (DRX) configuration, a sleeping state, and/or a power saving mode (see Lee, ¶ [0107] and [0137]).
Regarding claim 25, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the collected data comprises:an application ID;location information;Single-Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI);a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session ID;a Downlink (DL) data rate;a number of Uplink (UL) retransmissions;a DL latency;a percentage of device loading;a percentage of access availability;a Quality of Service (QoS) level; and/or a mobility pattern (see Lee, ¶ [0256]).
Regarding claim 26, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the instructions cause the UE, prior to sending the collected data, to prepare the collected data by anonymizing, aggregating, and/or normalizing the collected data (see Lee, ¶ [0122]-[0123]).
Regarding claim 27, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the instructions cause the UE to generate, from the collected data, Machine Learning (ML) or Artificial Intelligence (AI) data for use in data analytics (see Lee, ¶ [0253] and Patil, ¶ [0016] and [0058]).
Regarding claim 28, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the ML or Al data comprises training data, inference data, and/or validation data (see Lee, ¶ [0253] and Patil, ¶ [0016] and [0058]).
Regarding claim 29, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the instructions cause the UE to be managed by an operator, a trusted third-party service provider, or an untrusted third-party service provider (see Lee, ¶ [0129]).
Regarding claim 30, Lee discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE), cause the UE for perform a method comprising: executing a client application involved in data collection (see Lee, ¶ [0005], [[0137] and [0249]; user equipment client application involved in data collection is provided), and with data collection information comprising data collection parameters (see Lee, ¶ [0004] and [0107]; collected data parameters is provided); collecting data pertaining to the UE in accordance with the data collection parameters (see Lee, ¶ [0118]-[0119] and [0146]; data pertaining to user equipment is collected); and sending, to the AF over a user plane, the collected data with information selected from the data collection information (see Lee, ¶ [0071], [0127] and [0256]; collected data is transmitted).
Although Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed does not explicitly disclose the client application being configured with contact information pertaining to an Application Function (AF).
Patil teaches the client application being configured with contact information pertaining to an Application Function (AF) (see Patil, ¶ [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Patil with that of Lee in order to efficiently the specific network element involved in the providing of the data collection.
Regarding claim 31, Lee discloses a method of a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: executing a client application involved in data collection (see Lee, ¶ [0005], [[0137] and [0249]; user equipment client application involved in data collection is provided), and with data collection information comprising data collection parameters (see Lee, ¶ [0004] and [0107]; collected data parameters is provided); collecting data pertaining to the UE in accordance with the data collection parameters (see Lee, ¶ [0118]-[0119] and [0146]; data pertaining to user equipment is collected); and sending, to the AF over a user plane, the collected data with information selected from the data collection information (see Lee, ¶ [0071], [0127] and [0256]; collected data is transmitted).
Although Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed does not explicitly disclose the client application being configured with contact information pertaining to an Application Function (AF).
Patil teaches the client application being configured with contact information pertaining to an Application Function (AF) (see Patil, ¶ [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Patil with that of Lee in order to efficiently the specific network element involved in the providing of the data collection.
Regarding claim 32, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the data collection parameters comprise: a type of data the UE is to collect, data associated with one or more analytics IDs and application IDs, a data collection frequency, and/or a reporting frequency (see Lee, ¶ [0063] and [0094]).
Regarding claim 33, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the data collection information comprises: a processing requirement, an expiration time for the collected data, a timestamp of the data collection, and/or a correlation identifier that associates the collected data with the UE (see Lee, ¶ [0107] and [0253]).
Regarding claim 34, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the collected data comprises: a battery level, a battery discharge rate, a battery discharge history, a battery health, a Discontinuous Reception (DRX) configuration, a sleeping state, and/or a power saving mode (see Lee, ¶ [0107] and [0137]).
Regarding claim 35, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the collected data comprises:an application ID;location information;Single-Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI);a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session ID;a Downlink (DL) data rate;a number of Uplink (UL) retransmissions;a DL latency;a percentage of device loading;a percentage of access availability;a Quality of Service (QoS) level; and/or a mobility pattern (see Lee, ¶ [0256]).
Regarding claim 36, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the UE, prior to sending the collected data, prepares the collected data by anonymizing, aggregating, and/or normalizing the collected data (see Lee, ¶ [0122]-[0123]).
Regarding claim 37, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the UE generates, from the collected data, Machine Learning (ML) or Artificial Intelligence (AI) data for use in data analytics (see Lee, ¶ [0253] and Patil, ¶ [0016] and [0058]).
Regarding claim 38, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the ML or AI data comprises training data, inference data, and/or validation data (see Lee, ¶ [0253] and Patil, ¶ [0016] and [0058]).
Regarding claim 39, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the UE is managed by an operator, a trusted third- party service provider, or an untrusted third-party service provider (see Lee, ¶ [0129]).
Prior Art of Record
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Conclusion
7. 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 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 MOHAMED IBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:30AM to 6:00PM.
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 at 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.
/MOHAMED IBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights