DETAILED ACTION
The non-final office action is responsive to the filing of U.S. Patent Application 18/940,312 on 11/07/2024. 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2024 and 04/17/2025 were filed before the mailing date of the non-final office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 5, the claimed first network analysis node comprising a processor. However, the usage of the phrase of “network analysis node” is broad enough to include a general-purpose computer (for example, the computers with installed software, operating system (for example Linux or Microsoft Windows) and applications (for example web browsers)) and special-purpose computer (for example, Digital Signal Processors (DSP), Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs)). The specification does not clearly limit the utilization of a special-purpose computer. Thus, with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the network analysis node covers general-purpose computer per se. As people with ordinary skill in the art would know that a modern general-purpose computer consists of at least one processing element, typically a central processing unit (CPU) in the form of a metal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS) microprocessor, along with some type of computer memory, typically MOS semiconductor memory chips. The processing element carries out arithmetic and logical operations, and a sequencing and control unit can change the order of operations in response to stored data. Without some type of computer memory, it is not clear how the claimed system works, where the claimed system stores instructions, intermediate, and final results. That renders the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims 6-8 have the limitation from claim 5 and do not remedy the deficiency. Claims 6-8 are rejected under same rationale.
As to claim 8, the claim limitation recites “wherein the processor is further configured to store the second information indicative of further network analysis nodes.” However, it is not clear how a processor or processing element is configured to store “the second information indicative of further network analysis nodes.” Isn’t data stored in computer memory? That renders the claim indefinite.
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]-[0135]), comprising a processor (processing circuitry (or logic) 1501, Puente, [0132]-[0127]) 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
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 (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 is 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 is 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.
Conclusion
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 3/5/2026