Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 06/17/2026. Claims 1, 7 and 12 have been amended. Claims 3 and 9 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 10-12 are pending for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/08/2026 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 § 103
3. 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 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 4, 5, 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. (US 2024/0273409 A1), in view of Schnitzler et al. (US 2022/0417799 A1), hereinafter “LEE” and “Schnitzler” correspondingly.
5. As to claim 1, LEE teaches a method of providing analytics information, the method comprising:
receiving a request for analytics of quality of service (QoS) and policy assistance from a consumer network function (NF) (Fig. 2 and [0089]: the NF 230 may be a consumer NF may transmit an analytics information request message to the NWDAF 210; [0090]: the analytics result may be used to optimize the performance of a network function (including but not limited to, QoS management, traffic control, mobility management, load balancing, and power management of a terminal) performed by the NF 230);
collecting data for the analytics of the QoS and policy assistance ([0091]: the NWDAF 210 may function to collect and analyze data from each NF 230) from a 5G core (5GC) NF ([0043]: a network system 10 (e.g., a 5G network system) may include a plurality of entities 100-190. User equipment (UE) (or a user termina) 100 may be connected to a 5G core network);
generating the analytics information on the QoS and policy assistance based on the collected data ([0091]: the NWDAF 210 may function to collect and analyze data from each NF 230 to generate the analytics result and/or the analytics accuracy information requested by the consumer NF); and
transmitting the analytics information to the consumer NF ([0091]: the NWDAF 210 may transmit the analytics result and/or the analytics accuracy information to the consumer NF transmitting the analytic request).
LEE does not explicitly disclose “wherein the analytics information comprises: a candidate QoS parameter set; values of individual parameters of the candidate QoS parameter set; and predicted quality of experience (QoE)”.
In an analogous art, Schnitzler teaches “wherein the analytics information comprises: a candidate QoS parameter set; values of individual parameters of the candidate QoS parameter set ([0152]: the NWDAF may transmit a response message including the requested data analytics such as a QoS configuration … The QoS configuration may be transmitted as a set of WTRU(s) ID(s), wherein a set of QoS parameter values may be associated with the WTRU(s) ID(s)); and predicted quality of experience (QoE)” ([0148]: the NWDAF may transmit a response message including a predicted/estimated QoE value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of LEE and Schnitzler to achieve the claimed invention to enable the NWDAF collect data from various data providing entities such as NFs and provide analytics on demand to consumer entities ([0002]).
6. As to claim 2, LEE-Schnitzler teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the consumer NF is a policy control function (PCF) (LEE, [0044]: The NF may include a policy control function (PCF) 160).
7. As to claim 4, LEE-Schnitzler teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the generating comprises: deriving the analytics information using an observed service experience (Schnitzler, [0088]: The NWDAF may provide the consumer NF with any of an observed Service Experience) and (LEE, [0093]: the NWDAF 210 may derive analytics information and/or analytics accuracy information (e.g., derive statistics and/or prediction and/or analytics accuracy in response to an analytics consumer request or a request by an analytic model provider); [0102]: The analytics or ML model accuracy monitoring may be performed by comparing predictions using a currently trained ML model and corresponding true observed events [read as observed service experience]).
8. As to claim 5, LEE-Schnitzler teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the request comprises a request for monitoring analytics accuracy of the analytics of the QoS and policy assistance (LEE, [0099]: An NWDAF may be have a capability of examining the accuracy of analytics, and in response to a request, the NWDAF may provide accuracy information to a consumer NF or may use the accuracy information for an internal process; [0102]: The analytics or ML model accuracy monitoring may be performed by comparing predictions using a currently trained ML model and corresponding true observed events).
9 As to claims 7-8 and 10-11, claim 7-8 and 10-11 are corresponding server device claims that recite similar limitations as of method claims 1-2 and 4-5 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
10. Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE-Schnitzler, in view of XUE et al. (US 2023/0055739 A1), hereinafter “XUE”.
11. As to claim 6, LEE-Schnitzler teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving analytics feedback information from the consumer NF (LEE, [0097]: the NWDAF may collect feedback on an analytics result of using the ML model provided through the ML modeling monitoring service and/or analytics accuracy information from the NWDAF), but does not explicitly disclose “the analytics feedback information comprises a candidate QoS parameters set indication used for an action”.
In an analogous art, XUE teaches “wherein the analytics feedback information comprises a candidate QoS parameters set indication used for an action” (Xue, [0056]: The edge node 262, after receiving the plurality of candidate QoS profiles from the first network element, may utilize various data analytics technologies, including but not limited to artificial intelligence and other big data analytics models, to select one QoS profile from the plurality of candidate QoS profiles … the selected candidate QoS profile and/or QoS parameters may be fed back to the first network element to configure QoS flow; [0050-0051]: the [candidate] QoS profiles may each include a set of [candidate] QoS parameters and/or rules [used for an action]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of LEE-Schnitzler and XUE to achieve the claimed invention to enable the core network to use the candidate QoS parameters and values derived/generated by various data analytics technologies to perform configuration of the transmission of the QoS flow.
12. As to claim 12, claim 12 is a corresponding server device claim that recites similar limitations as of method claim 6 and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
14. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action.
15. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE (3) months from the mailing date of this communication. See 37 CFR 1.134.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3886.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s SPE, KAMAL B. DIVECHA, can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUANG N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights