DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 are presented for consideration.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As per independent claims 1, and 10, the application registry request comprises an identifier of the at least one application, authentication information, and an indication of the at least one management entity or the at least one managed entity, however, dependent claims 3, and 12 are claiming wherein the application registry request comprises authentication details associated with an application or an associated managed entity, they fail to further limit the subject matter of independent claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 6-10, 12, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. [ US Patent Application No 2021/0136716 ], in view of Ravindranath et al. [ US Patent No 10,785,652 ].
As per claim 1, Ge discloses the invention as claimed including a method performed by a first entity, the method comprising:
receiving an application registry request from at least one application [ i.e. a MEC may send a MEC registration request to the first network element ] [ paragraphs 0098-0105 ], wherein the application registry request registers the at least one application with an application programmable interface (API) management service of at least one management entity or at least one managed entity [ i.e. instance of an API invoker in the CAPIF ] [ paragraphs 0070, 0102, 0120, and 0174 ];
determining that the at least one application is enabled to access the at least one management entity or the at least one managed entity [ i.e. after receiving the registration information of the MEC, the first network element may further send the registration information to another network element, to register the information about the MEC with another network element ] [ paragraphs 0106-0110 ]; and
in response to determining that the at least one application is enabled to access the at least one management entity or the at least one managed entity, configuring a gateway entity to enable the at least one application to access the at least one management entity or the at least one managed entity [ i.e. deploy MEC proxy/gateway ] [ paragraphs 0208, 0209, and 0230 ].
Ge does not specifically disclose
wherein the application registry request comprises an identifier of the at least one application, authentication information, and an indication of the at least one management entity or the at least one managed entity.
Ravindranath discloses
wherein the application registry request comprises an identifier of the at least one application, authentication information, and an indication of the at least one management entity or the at least one managed entity [ i.e. UE may be provided with an application, create credentials, such as client ID and Secret and associated them with the identity of the private network slice, e.g. the NSI ID ] [ Figure 6A; and col 9, lines 64-col 10, lines 27 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ge and Ravindranath because the teaching of Ravindranath would enable to provide secure remote access to a private 5G network of an enterprise through a customer enterprise private network slice of a 5G network [ Ravindranath, col 1, lines 9-13 ]
As per claim 3, Ge discloses wherein the application registry request comprises one or more of: a network operator; a level of exposure; management services to be exposed; management data to be exposed; information object classes to be exposed; management object instances to be exposed; authentication details associated with an application; or an associated managed entity [ i.e. exposure function ] [ paragraphs 0016, 0072, and 0077 ].
As per claim 4, Ge discloses transmitting first information corresponding to the application registry request to an approval device; and receiving second information from the approval device indicating whether the application registry request is approved [ i.e. authenticating and confirming the authorization ] [ paragraphs 0070-0072, and 0085 ].
As per claim 6, Ge discloses wherein third information is transmitted to at least one second entity, and the third information indicates one or more of whether the application registry request is approved, at least one approved management entity, at least one approved managed entity, information for accessing the at least one approved management entity, information for accessing the at least one approved managed entity, a description corresponding to the at least one approved management entity, or a description corresponding to the at least one approved managed entity [ i.e. sends to the second network element information about a MEC corresponding to the target reference information ] [ 402, Figure 4; and paragraphs 0093, and 0094 ].
9. As per claim 7, Ge discloses wherein the at least one second entity comprises one or more of a trusted application, a gateway, an application programming interface registry, or the at least one application [ i.e registration information ] [ paragraphs 0102, 0107, and 0108 ].
10. As per claim 8, Ge discloses wherein the at least one application is configured to run on a near real-time random-access network (RAN) intelligent controller [ Figure 3; and paragraph 0065 ].
11. As per claim 9, Ge discloses wherein the first entity comprises one or more of a telecom management system, a management domain, a middleware, a trusted application, an application programming interface, a management service implementation, a management function, a management entity, or an entity for approving authorizations [ paragraphs 0012-0017 ].
12. As per claims 10, 12, and 13, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 1, 3, and 4.
13. As per claim 15, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 6.
14. As per claim 16, Ge discloses receive the application registry request from the at least one application or middleware [ i.e. IoT or V2X application ] [ paragraphs 0070, and 0077 ].
15. As per claim 17, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 8.
16. As per claim 18, Ge discloses stored on a plurality of memory devices, and the plurality of memory devices are physically in different locations [ Figures 12-15 ].
17. As per claim 19, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 9.
Claim(s) 5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. [ US Patent Application No 2021/0136716 ], in view of Ravindranath et al. [ US Patent No 10,785,652 ], and further in view of Lynch et al. [ US Patent Application No 2016/0212695 ].
19. As per claim 5, Ge in view of Ravindranath does not specifically disclose wherein the second information comprises one or more of a list of management entities approved, or a list of managed entities approved. Lynch discloses wherein the second information comprises one or more of a list of management entities approved, or a list of managed entities approved [ i.e. pre-approval or post-approval exposure of the network ] [ paragraphs 0447, and 0600 ]. It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ge, Ravindranath, and Lynch because the teaching of Lynch would enable third party network-based connection management services to not conflict with native connection managers [ Lynch, paragraph 0105 ].
20. As per claim 14, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 5.
Response to Arguments
21. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 12-19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. [ US Patent Application No 2022/0386226 ] discloses an application registers with a server of the network operator or a third party to which network operator provides network services such as network slicing service
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 PST.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-2727952. 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.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights