DETAILED ACTION
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/6/2026 has been entered.
2. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
3. The IDS submitted on 6/27/2026 has been considered.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; however, they are not persuasive based on new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 partially recites “the first service communication proxy can determine the second network function without parsing a body of the service request” (emphasis added). The word "can" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigo (US PG Pub. 2023/0188625) further in view of Rajput (US PG Pub. 2022/0295282).
As regarding claim 1, Rodrigo discloses An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor [para. 98 and 109]; and
at least one memory including computer program codes [para. 112 and 141];
the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus [para. 112 and 141] to:
generate, at a first network function, a service request for requesting a service from a second network function, the service request comprising a header indicating scope information about the requested service [para. 12 and 128; initiating transmission of a service request comprising a HTTP header identifying the parameters to be used for discovery and selection]; and
transmit the service request to a first service communication proxy serving the first network function [para. 12 and 128; transmitting the service request to a SCP].
Rodrigo does not explicitly disclose the following limitations that, however, are disclosed by Rajput:
wherein the header comprises one or more scope tokens that include at least one resource/operation-level scope defined by at least one service application programming interface, wherein scope information indicates requested resources for the requested service and requested actions on the resources, and wherein the scope information enables a first service communication proxy to request an access token corresponding to the service request based on the scope information [Rajput para. 64-68; the scope attribute populated from the service name extracted from the R-URI of the SBI service request message].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Rodrigo’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Rajput, in order to specify the scope of the requested service.
As regarding claim 2, Rajput further discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the header comprises a 3gpp-Sbi-Authorization-Scope header or 3gpp-Sbi-Scope header [para. 59 and 65-67; the header of the SBI service request message].
As regarding claim 3, Rodrigo further discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: determine the second network function prior to generating the service request [FIGS. 1B & 1C and para. 4, 6].
As regarding claim 5, Rodrigo further discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: receive, from the first service communication proxy, a service response to the service request [para. 14, 31, 43; receiving a response from the SCP].
As regarding claim 6, Rodrigo does not explicitly disclose that the first network function and the first service communication proxy are in a first Public Land Mobile Network; and the second network function is in the first Public Land Mobile Network. However, Rajput discloses it [Rajput FIGS. 2&3, para. 46-48 and 57; the consumer NF a SCP maybe in one PLMN while the producer NF maybe in another PLMN].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Rodrigo’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Rajput, in order to create a multiple PLMNs, each consisting of a group of network functions NFs serving a particular geographical region.
As regarding claim 7, Rajput further discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the first network function and the first service communication proxy are in a first Public Land Mobile Network; and the second network function is in a second Public Land Mobile Network different from the first Public Land Mobile Network [Rajput FIG. 2, para. 46-48 and 57; the consumer NF a SCP maybe in one PLMN while the producer NF maybe in another PLMN].
As regarding claim 8, Rodrigo discloses An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor [para. 98 and 109]; and
at least one memory including computer program codes [para. 112 and 141];
the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus [para. 112 and 141] to:
receive, at a first service communication proxy, a service request from a first network function for requesting a service from a second network function, the service request comprising a header indicating scope information about the requested service [para. 12 and 128; receiving, at a SCP from NFc, a service request comprising a HTTP header identifying the parameters to be used for discovery and selection of the NFp that provides the requested service];
Rodrigo does not explicitly disclose the following limitations that, however, are disclosed by Rajput:
wherein the header comprises one or more scope tokens that include at least one resource/operation-level scope defined by at least one service application programming interface, wherein scope information indicates requested resources for the requested service and requested actions on the resources, and wherein the scope information enables a first service communication proxy to request an access token corresponding to the service request based on the scope information [Rajput para. 64-68; the scope attribute populated from the service name extracted from the R-URI of the SBI service request message].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Rodrigo’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Rajput, in order to specify the scope of the requested service.
Rodrigo and Rajput further disclose obtain an access token for the service request based on the scope information [Rajput para. 70].
transmit the service request and the access token to a second service communication proxy serving the second network function [Rodrigo para. 127-129; transmitting a service request to a second SCP].
As regarding claim 9, Rajput further discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the scope information comprises: information indicating a service name of the requested service [Rajput table 1 and para. 68; the requested scope including service name].
As regarding claim 10, Rodrigo and Rajput further discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the service request further comprises discovery and selection parameters including an identifier of a source public land mobile network and an identifier of a target public land mobile network, the discovery and selection parameters being included in the service request such that the first service communication proxy can determine the second network function without parsing a body of the service request [Rajput para. 68-69], and the apparatus is further caused to: in response to receiving the service request, determine the second network function based on the discovery and selection parameters [Rodrigo FIG. 1D and para. 7, 13 and 16].
As regarding claim 11, Rajput further discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: transmit a request for the access token to a network function repository function, the request comprising the scope information; and receive a response to the request from the network function repository function, the response comprising the access token [Rajput para. 69-70].
As regarding claim 12, Rajput further discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: in response to receiving a service response to the service request from the second service communication proxy, forward the service response to the first network function [Rajput para. 27, 60 and 62; receiving a SBI service response from the proxy].
As regarding claim 13, Rajput further discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein: the first network function and the first service communication proxy are in a first Public Land Mobile Network; and the second network function and the second service communication proxy are in the first Public Land Mobile Network [Rajput FIGS. 2&3, para. 46-48 and 57; the consumer NF a SCP maybe in one PLMN while the producer NF maybe in another PLMN].
As regarding claim 14, Rajput further discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein: the first network function and the first service communication proxy are in a first Public Land Mobile Network; and the second network function and the second service communication proxy are in a second Public Land Mobile Network different from the first Public Land Mobile Network [Rajput FIGS. 2&3, para. 46-48 and 57; the consumer NF a SCP maybe in one PLMN while the producer NF maybe in another PLMN].
10. Claims 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigo (US PG Pub. 2023/0188625) in view of Rajput (US PG Pub. 2022/0295282) further in view of Zhao (US PG Pub. 2022/0052989).
As regarding claim 15, Rodrigo and Rajput disclose An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor [Rodrigo para. 98 and 109]; and
at least one memory including computer program codes [Rodrigo para. 112 and 141];
the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus [Rodrigo para. 112 and 141] to:
receive, at a second service communication proxy, a service request and an access token from a first service communication proxy, the service request originating from a first network function for requesting a service from a second network function and comprising a header indicating scope information about the requested service [Rodrigo para. 12 and 127-129; receiving, at a second SCP node from a first SCP node, a service request comprising a HTTP header identifying the parameters to be used for discovery and selection of the NFp that provides the requested service || Rajput para. 50; receiving a service request including the obtained access token].
Rodrigo does not explicitly disclose the following limitations that, however, are disclosed by Rajput:
wherein the header comprises one or more scope tokens that include at least one resource/operation-level scope defined by at least one service application programming interface, wherein scope information indicates requested resources for the requested service and requested actions on the resources, and wherein the scope information enables a first service communication proxy to request an access token corresponding to the service request based on the scope information [Rajput para. 64-68; the scope attribute populated from the service name extracted from the R-URI of the SBI service request message].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Rodrigo’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Rajput, in order to specify the scope of the requested service.
Rodrigo and Rajput do not disclose verify the access token based on the header of the service request; in response to the verification of the access token succeeding, transmit the service request to the second network function without transmitting the access token to the second network function. However, Zhao discloses it [FIG.7 and para. 299-301 and 307].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Rodrigo and Rajput’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Zhao, in order to reduce the workload of verifying the token on the receiving network function.
As regarding claim 16, Rodrigo, Rajput and Zhao further disclose The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: verify integrity of the access token; and in response to the integrity of the access token being verified, validate the access token by checking if the scope information about the requested service matches scope information about an authorized service comprised in the access token [Rajput para. 7, 8, 56 and 60].
As regarding claim 19, Rodrigo, Rajput and Zhao further disclose The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: in response to receiving a service response to the service request from the second network function, forward the service response to the first service communication proxy [Rajput para. 27, 60 and 62; receiving a SBI service response from the proxy].
As regarding claim 20, Rodrigo, Rajput and Zhao further disclose the apparatus of claim 15, wherein: the first network function and the first service communication proxy are in a first Public Land Mobile Network; and the second network function and the second service communication proxy are in a second Public Land Mobile Network different from the first Public Land Mobile Network [Rajput FIGS. 2&3, para. 46-48 and 57; the consumer NF a SCP maybe in one PLMN while the producer NF maybe in another PLMN].
11. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigo (US PG Pub. 2023/0188625) in view of Rajput (US PG Pub. 2022/0295282) here in referred as “Rajput-5282” in view of Zhao (US PG Pub. 2022/0052989) further in view of Rajput (US PG Pub. 2022/0182835) here in referred as “Rajput-2835”.
As regarding claim 17, Rodrigo, Rajput-5282 and Zhao do not explicitly disclose The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the scope information about the requested service comprises first information indicating a service name of the requested service, the scope information about the authorized service comprises third information indicating a service name of the authorized service, and the apparatus is further caused to: determine whether the first information matches the third information; and in accordance with the determination that the first information does not match the third information, determine that the validation of the access token fails. However, Rajput-2835 discloses it [para. 47-50; the requested scope including service names, requested resources and requested actions on the resources and if the service name does not match, the authentication is unsuccessful].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Rodrigo and Rajput-5282 and Zhao’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Rajput-2835, in order to prevent access to unauthorized services.
As regarding claim 18, Rodrigo, Rajput-5282, Zhao and Rajput-2835 further disclose The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the scope information about the authorized service comprises fourth information indicating authorized resources for the authorized service and authorized actions on the authorized resources, and the apparatus is further caused to: determine whether the second information matches the fourth information; and in accordance with the determination that the second information does not match the fourth information, determine that the validation of the access token fails [Rajput-2835 para. 47-50; the requested scope including service names, requested resources and requested actions on the resources and if the service name does not match, the authentication is unsuccessful].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG P TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7905. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on 57127267986798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/THONG TRUONG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights