DETAILED ACTION
The final office action is responsive to the reply filed on 06/09/2026. Claims 1-8 are pending; claims 1-8 are rejected.
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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0351993 A1 to Puente Pestaña et al. (hereinafter Puente) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0053393 A1 to KHARE et al. (hereinafter KHARE).
As to claim 5, Puente teaches a first network analysis node (an analytics function 1500, Puente, [0132]-[0140]), comprising a processor (processing circuitry (or logic) 1501, Puente, [0132]-[ 0140]); and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor (a memory 1503, Puente, [0132]-[ 0140]), the processor and memory configured to:
receive, from a device in a network, a first message comprising information indicative of a request for a subscription, wherein the request for the subscription is for the device, to network analytics information, from the first network analysis node (NF 800 (e.g. a device in a network) sends a service request (e.g. request for a subscription) to ADF 410 for analytics information…, the ADF 410 forward the service request received from the NF 800 to the first analytics function 400, Puente, [0094]-[0098]), and.
Puente does not explicitly disclose information indicative of a first list of further network analysis nodes selected for subscription by the device and to select a second network analysis node from the further network analysis nodes; and to send, to the second network analysis node, third information indicative of a request for a transfer of at least part of the subscription to the second network analysis node.
KHARE discloses information indicative of a first list of further network analysis nodes selected for subscription (In step S402, NWDAFx 401 discovers NWDAFy 402 and NWDAFz 403 (e.g. claimed “list of further network analysis nodes”) serving those probable TAIs where UE 404 can move into, using NRF 410, KHARE, [0030]-[0068]) and to select a second network analysis node from among a further network analysis nodes of a first list of further network analysis nodes (NWDAFx 501 detects a first condition for a handover of the analytics calculation for the UE, e.g. the NWDAFx 501 predicts that the UE, at a certain time, will likely move to a new TAI (or TAIs), then it sends a discovery request to NRF 503 requesting NWDAF (or multiple NWDAFs) that are serving those TAI(s). NRF 503 in response provides NWDAFy 502 and NWDAFz 504 information, e.g. NWDAFy 502 and NWDAFz 504 are serving those predicted TAI(s), KHARE, [0069]-[0083], [0084]-[0095], [0027]-[0068], [0098]-[0115], Fig. 5 and 6); and
send, to the second network analysis node, third information indicative of a request for a transfer of at least part of the subscription to the second network analysis node (NWDAFx 501 requests of NWDAFy 502 preparation of the handover of the analytics calculation by subscribing using Nnwdaf_AnalyticsSubscription_Subscribe to NWDAFy 502, and in order to inform NWDAFy 502 that this subscription is specific for a potential handover, it indicates “SubscriptionType=Predictive” indicating that this is a handover preparation request for an ongoing data analytics calculation for a certain consumer NF 505, KHARE, [0069]-[0083], [0084]-[0095], [0027]-[0068], [0098]-[0115], Fig. 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a mechanism to predict and subscribe to potential NWDAF(s) as taught by KHARE to modify the node of Puente in order to provide data collection and analytics services in UE's different locations continuously.
As to claim 6, Puente-KHARE discloses the first network analysis node of claim 5, wherein the processor and memory are further configured to send, to at least one of the further network analysis nodes, fourth information indicative of the transfer of the at least part of the subscription (KHARE, [0069]-[0083], [0084]-[0095], [0027]-[0068], [0098]-[0115], Fig. 5 and 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a mechanism to predict and subscribe to potential NWDAF(s) as taught by KHARE to modify the node of Puente in order to provide data collection and analytics services in UE's different locations continuously.
As to claim 7, Puente-KHARE discloses the first network analysis node of claim 5, wherein the second information is further indicative of at least one of an identifier of the device and an identifier of the subscription (NWDAFx 501 requests of NWDAFz 504 preparation of the handover of the analytics calculation by subscribing using Nnwdaf_AnalyticsSubscription_Subscribe to NWDAFz 504, and in order to inform NWDAFz 504 that this subscription is specific for a potential handover, it indicates “SubscriptionType=Predictive” indicating that this is a handover preparation request for an ongoing data analytics calculation for a certain consumer NF 505, KHARE, [0069]-[0083], [0084]-[0095], [0027]-[0068], [0098]-[0115], Fig. 5 and 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a mechanism to predict and subscribe to potential NWDAF(s) as taught by KHARE to modify the node of Puente in order to provide data collection and analytics services in UE's different locations continuously.
As to claim 8, Puente-KHARE discloses the first network analysis node of claim 5, wherein the processor and memory are further configured to store the second information indicative of further network analysis nodes (The subscription data comprises at least one of a callback URI of a consumer network function which created subscription at the analytics function, and an analytics Id and corresponding details comprising at least one of expiry, subscription permanent identifier and analytics specific information, KHARE, [0069]-[0083], [0084]-[0095], [0027]-[0068], [0098]-[0115], Fig. 5 and 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a mechanism to predict and subscribe to potential NWDAF(s) as taught by KHARE to modify the node of Puente in order to provide data collection and analytics services in UE's different locations continuously.
As to claims 1-4, the same reasoning applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding method claims 1-4. Accordingly, claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puente in view of KHARE.
Double Patenting
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 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,085 B2 (hereinafter P085). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the Instant Application
Claim 1 of P085
A method performed by a first network analysis node, the method comprising:
A method performed by a first network analysis node in a network, the method comprising:
receiving, from a device, first information indicative of a request for a subscription for the device to network analytics information from the first network analysis node, and second information indicative of further network analysis nodes;
receiving, from a device, a first message comprising information indicative of a request for a subscription, wherein the request for the subscription is for the device, to network analytics information, from the first network analysis node, and of a first list of further network analysis nodes selected for subscription by the device; and
selecting a second network analysis node from the further network analysis nodes; and
selecting a second network analysis node from among the further network analysis nodes of the first list of further network analysis nodes; and
sending, to the second network analysis node, third information indicative of a request for a transfer of at least part of the subscription to the second network analysis node.
sending, to the second network analysis node, a second message comprising information indicative of a request for a transfer of at least part of the subscription to the network analytics information from the first network analysis node to the second network analysis node.
Claims 1 of the instant application is obviously disclosed by patent claim 1 in that claim 1 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 1 of the instant application. Claim 1 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
As to claims 2-8, claims 1-8 of P085 obviously disclose all limitations in claims 2-8 of the instant application. Claims 2-8 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “Applicant respectfully submits that Khare fails to disclose sending and also selecting as provided in claim 1. Applicant respectfully submits that while Khare does select, Khare does the selecting using different information” from page 6 to page 7. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Khare’s “NWDAFx 401 performs UE 404 mobility analytics calculation and finds out that UE 404 may move out of an NWDAFx 401 serving area 411 at a certain time” (emphasis added. see Khare, [0030]-[0068], [0069]-[0083], [0084]-[0095], [0027]-[0068], [0098]-[0115]). Note the location of “UE 404” is from “UE 404” or “subscription client device.” Based on the location information, Khare’s “NWDAFx 401 discovers NWDAFy 402 and NWDAFz 403 serving those probable TAIs where UE 404 can move into, using NRF 410” (see Khare, [0030]-[0068], [0069]-[0083], [0084]-[0095], [0027]-[0068], [0098]-[0115]). So NWDAFx 401 selects NWDAFy 402 and NWDAFz 403 based on the location information from “UE 404” and “moving into” information. So the operations of Khare’s NWDAFx 401 disclosure reads on “select a second network analysis node from the further network analysis nodes.” Khare further discloses “NWDAFx 401 sends a handover prepare request to both NWDAFy 402 and NWDAFz 403 indicating that a UE may attach in their area 412, 413, and requests these NWDAFs 402, 403 to be ready for handover” (see [0030]-[0068], [0069]-[0083], [0084]-[0095], [0027]-[0068], [0098]-[0115]). So the disclosure reads on claimed “send, to the second network analysis node, third information indicative of a request for a transfer of at least part of the subscription to the second network analysis node.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a mechanism to predict and subscribe to potential NWDAF(s) as taught by KHARE to modify the node of Puente in order to provide data collection and analytics services in UE's different locations continuously.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “Further, there is no motivation to modify this aspect in either Puente or Khare. Hence there is no reason to combine in the manner claimed. In addition, while Khare teaches subscription handovers, as mentioned in the reason to combine, this rationale only supports adding handover itself. It does not in any way provide a reason to modify input signaling to include device-provided node lists. Hence, the combination of Puente and Khare fails to disclose all the features of claim 1 and the reason to combine does not extend to modifying the input signaling” on page 8, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Note claim limitation recites “second information indicative of further network analysis nodes” (emphasis added), “second information” is only an indicative of further network analysis nodes, not a list of analysis nodes provide by “device” Since Khare’s “NWDAFx 401 has the location information of UE 404 and can select a list of analysis nodes based on the location and “moving into” information, Khare’s disclosure reads on claimed limitation. So, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a mechanism to predict and subscribe to potential NWDAF(s) as taught by KHARE to modify the node of Puente in order to provide data collection and analytics services in UE's different locations continuously.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “Applicant respectfully requests that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until the claims are otherwise allowed” on page 4, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner maintains the ODP rejection as Applicant’s does not file TD to overcome the rejection or does not explicitly and specifically point out any deficiencies in the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112 of claims 5-8 has been withdrawn.
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 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 RUOLEI ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at (571)272-7304. 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.
/RUOLEI ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449 7/27/2026
Prosecution Insights