DETAILED ACTION
In a communication received on 20 March 2026, applicants amended claims 1, 7 and 17 and canceled claim 5 and 14-16.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-12 and 17-20 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7 and 17 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 is dependent on canceled claim 16, it should be dependent on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalank et al. (US 2021/0111985 A1) in view of Joshi et al. (US 2010/0030880 A1), and further in view of Assali et al. (US 2020/0136911 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Mahalank discloses: a method for handling a service request in a network, wherein the method is performed by a first service communication proxy, SCP, node that is configured to operate as an SCP between a first network function, NF, node of a service consumer and a second NF node of a service producer in the network (i.e., service communications proxy to route messages and serving network functions in Mahalank, ¶0011),
the method comprising: initiating transmission of a first request towards the second NF node of the service producer (i.e., message requesting service from an NF routed via proxy node serving the requested NF in Mahalank, ¶0018, ¶0067),
wherein the second SCP node is configured to operate as an SCP between the first NF node and the third NF node in the network (i.e., routes messages to the SCP serving the destination NF; suggesting second SCP operating as proxy between first and third NF nodes in Mahalank, ¶0050, ¶0060, ¶0067).
Mahalank discloses SCP subscribes to NRF maintaining reachability of NF service instances (¶0003, ¶0004). Mahalank do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Joshi, in order to improving retry correctness before rerouting or failover (¶0009, ¶0012), discloses:
checking whether the second NF node is operative if no positive response is received from the second NF node, wherein checking whether the second NF node is operative comprises initiating transmission of a status request towards the second NF node (i.e., requesting status after a primary proxy failure to discover current status suggesting an operative check with no positive result response; further sending a Request Status ExOP in Joshi, ¶0037, ¶0069, ¶0072); and
initiating transmission of the first request towards a third NF node of the service producer via a second SCP node if the second NF node is operative and no positive response is received from the second NF node to the first request transmitted towards the second NF node via the first SCP node due to the first SCP node failing to connect to the second NF node (i.e., forward copied retry request to failover proxy after primary proxy failure; with the primary proxy down and failed before forwarding in Joshi, ¶0002, ¶0010, ¶0066, ¶0068, ¶0076).
Based on Mahalank in view of Joshi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Joshi to improve upon those of Mahalank in order to improving retry correctness before rerouting or failover.
Mahalank discloses the SCP and worker SCPs update and propagate changes in routes/topology to the NFs which suggests that the load balancing can send the request to the same or different NFs via multiple proxies (¶0004, ¶0052). Mahalank and Joshi do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Assali, in order to improve burden placed on consumers and producers for discovery, load balancing and retries by implementing service proxy using service-based architecture (¶0004-0005), discloses:
wherein the second NF node and the third NF node are different NF nodes (i.e., first and second PCF instances and retargeting the request to the second PCF as distinct instances in Assali, ¶0085, ¶0089, ¶0090),
wherein the first request is transmitted towards the second NF node for the second NF node to execute a service requested by the first NF node and transmission of the first request is initiated towards the third NF node for the third NF node to execute the service (i.e., SMF/AMF sends service creation request to PCF, proxy retargets the request to another PCF; suggesting both NFs execute the requested service in Assali, ¶0084, ¶0087, ¶0089), and
wherein the second SCP node is a different SCP node to the first SCP node. (i.e., multiple service proxy workers routing from worker to worker suggesting second proxy node different from first proxy node in Assali, ¶0047, ¶0085, ¶0090).
Based on Mahalank in view of Joshi, and further in view of Assali, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Assali to improve upon those of Mahalank in order to improve burden placed on consumers and producers for discovery, load balancing and retries by implementing service proxy using service-based architecture.
With respect to claim 3, Mahalank discloses: a method as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising: identifying that the first request is to be transmitted via a different SCP node; and/or selecting the second SCP node (i.e., load balancing of service requests include routing the requests to NFs, the routes include proxy nodes that route the requests between them in Mahalank, ¶0006, ¶0011).
With respect to claim 4, Mahalank discloses: a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the second SCP node is an SCP node that is in the same SCP domain as the first SCP node (i.e., the leader SCP has in its domain and management for worker proxy nodes that perform inter-proxy node message routing according to the NF topology in Mahalank, ¶0024).
With respect to claim 19, Mahalank discloses: a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: initiating transmission of the first request towards the third NF node via the second SCP node comprises: initiating transmission of the first request towards the third NF node via the second SCP node with information identifying the third NF node (i.e., producer NFs register and provide IP address and port numbers, the consumer NFs and SCP reference this information to route requests to the identified producer NF in Mahalank, ¶0003-0004).
With respect to claim 20, Mahalank discloses: a method as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising: receiving a response to the first request from the third NF node via the second SCP node (i.e., consumer NF receives services requested through the SCP based on the routing and NF topology and may be via worker SCP proxies in Mahalank, ¶0003-0004, ¶0011).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalank et al. (US 2021/0111985 A1) in view of Joshi et al. (US 2010/0030880 A1) and Assali et al. (US 2020/0136911 A1), and further in view of Luna et al. (US 2013/0145010 A1)
With respect to claim 6, Mahalank discloses SCP subscribes to NRF maintaining reachability of NF service instances (¶0003, ¶0004). Mahalank, Joshi, and Assali do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Luna, in order to improve robustness by avoiding traffic optimization components introducing a bottleneck or single point of failure (¶0004), discloses: a method as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising: checking whether the first SCP node failed to connect to the second NF node (i.e., identifying failure to connect to a proxy in Luna, ¶0526).
Based on Mahalank in view of Joshi, and Assali, and further in view of Luna, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Luna to improve upon those of Mahalank in order to improve robustness by avoiding traffic optimization components introducing a bottleneck or single point of failure.
Claim(s) 7-12, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalank et al. (US 2021/0111985 A1) in view of Joshi et al. (US 2010/0030880 A1) and Assali et al. (US 2020/0136911 A1), and further in view of Ceragioli et al. (US 2010/0030839 A1)
With respect to claim 7, Mahalank discloses the SCP and worker SCPs update and propagate changes in routes/topology to the NFs which suggests that the load balancing can send the request to the same or different NFs via multiple proxies (¶0004, ¶0052). Mahalank, Joshi, and Assali do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Ceragioli, in order to provide fault tolerance and disaster recovery by redirecting to available proxy servers when a server is unavailable (¶0065), discloses: a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the first SCP node failing to connect to the second NF node is: the first SCP node itself failing to connect to the second NF node; or at least one third SCP node failing to connect to the second NF node, wherein the at least one third SCP node is configured to operate as an SCP between the first SCP node and the second NF node (i.e., a failure to connect to a node can be based on a status message that does not receive a response within a given time period or attempts in Ceragioli, ¶0060, ¶0065).
Based on Mahalank in view of Joshi and Assali, and further in view of Ceragioli, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Ceragioli to improve upon those of Mahalank in order to provide fault tolerance and disaster recovery by redirecting to available proxy servers when a server is unavailable.
With respect to claim 8, Mahalank discloses: a method as claimed in claim 7, the method further comprising checking whether the first SCP node failed to connect to the second NF node; and/or checking whether the second NF node is operative, and wherein: checking whether the at least one third SCP node failed to connect to the second NF node comprises: checking a status of the at least one third SCP node to identify whether the at least one third SCP node failed to connect to the second NF node (i.e., SCP proxies including worker proxies subscribe to the leader SCP which monitors changes in the NF topology that suggests monitoring the status of NF nodes in Mahalank, ¶0024).
With respect to claim 9, Mahalank discloses: a method as claimed in claim 8, wherein: the status is checked with the at least one third SCP node or a network repository function (NRF) (i.e., the leader SCP maintains a NF topology database to reference and update worker proxies with in Mahalank, ¶0024).
With respect to claim 10, Mahalank discloses: a method as claimed in claim 9, wherein: checking the status with the at least one third SCP node comprises: initiating transmission of a second request towards the third SCP node, wherein the second request is a request for the status of the third SCP node (i.e., the worker proxies can submit a subscription communication to receive NF topology information of other proxy nodes, this suggests that changes in the topology reflect the status of other SCP nodes in Mahalank, ¶0024).
With respect to claim 11, Mahalank discloses the SCP and worker SCPs update and propagate changes in routes/topology to the NFs which suggests that the load balancing can send the request to the same or different NFs via multiple proxies (¶0004, ¶0052). Mahalank, Joshi, and Assali do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Ceragioli, in order to provide fault tolerance and disaster recovery by redirecting to available proxy servers when a server is unavailable (¶0065), discloses: a method as claimed in claim 10, wherein: if no positive response to the second request is received from the third SCP node, the third SCP node failed to connect to the second NF node; or if a positive response to the second request is received from the third SCP node, the third SCP node succeeded to connect to the second NF node (i.e., a failure to connect to a node can be based on a status message that does not receive a response within a given time period or attempts in Ceragioli, ¶0060, ¶0065).
Based on Mahalank in view of Joshi and Assali, and further in view of Ceragioli, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Ceragioli to improve upon those of Mahalank in order to provide fault tolerance and disaster recovery by redirecting to available proxy servers when a server is unavailable.
With respect to claim 12, Mahalank discloses the SCP and worker SCPs update and propagate changes in routes/topology to the NFs which suggests that the load balancing can send the request to the same or different NFs via multiple proxies (¶0004, ¶0052). Mahalank, Joshi, and Assali do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Ceragioli, in order to provide fault tolerance and disaster recovery by redirecting to available proxy servers when a server is unavailable (¶0065), discloses: a method as claimed in claim 10, wherein: the second request is a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) ping request or a HTTP head request (i.e., a ping message can be used to determine the status of another node in Ceragioli, ¶0060, ¶0065).
Based on Mahalank in view of Joshi and Assali, and further in view of Ceragioli, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Ceragioli to improve upon those of Mahalank in order to provide fault tolerance and disaster recovery by redirecting to available proxy servers when a server is unavailable.
With respect to claim 17, Mahalank discloses the SCP and worker SCPs update and propagate changes in routes/topology to the NFs which suggests that the load balancing can send the request to the same or different NFs via multiple proxies (¶0004, ¶0052). Mahalank, Joshi, and Assali do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Ceragioli, in order to provide fault tolerance and disaster recovery by redirecting to available proxy servers when a server is unavailable (¶0065), discloses: a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: if a positive response to the status request is received from the second NF node, the second NF node is operative; or if no positive response to the status request is received from the second NF node, the second NF node is inoperative (i.e., a status message can be used to determine the status of a node, if no response is received after a period of time or number of attempts the node may be deemed inoperative in Ceragioli, ¶0060, ¶0065).
Based on Mahalank in view of Joshi and Assali, and further in view of Ceragioli, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Ceragioli to improve upon those of Mahalank in order to provide fault tolerance and disaster recovery by redirecting to available proxy servers when a server is unavailable.
With respect to claim 18, Mahalank discloses the SCP and worker SCPs update and propagate changes in routes/topology to the NFs which suggests that the load balancing can send the request to the same or different NFs via multiple proxies (¶0004, ¶0052). Mahalank, Joshi, and Assali do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Ceragioli, in order to provide fault tolerance and disaster recovery by redirecting to available proxy servers when a server is unavailable (¶0065), discloses: a method as claimed in claim 16, wherein: the third request is a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) ping request or a HTTP head request (i.e., using a ping message to request the status of another node in Ceragioli, ¶0060, ¶0065).
Based on Mahalank in view of Joshi and Assali, and further in view of Ceragioli, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Ceragioli to improve upon those of Mahalank in order to provide fault tolerance and disaster recovery by redirecting to available proxy servers when a server is unavailable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERMAN L LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Joon Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
Sherman Lin
5/2/2026
/S. L./Examiner, Art Unit 2447
/JOON H HWANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights