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 .
This is a non-final office action. Claims 1 through 46 were considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 07/21/2023 and 07/22/2025 are in compliance with the provision of 37 VFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The oath/declaration filed on 07/20/2023 was received and reviewed by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 39-42 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method implemented in a data source node (DSN), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the telephone discussion with Attorney John Christopher (37,596) on 08/13/2025, a provisional election was made electing Group I. Affirma-tion of this election should be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Group II is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner as being for a nonelected claims.
Restriction to one of the following inventions was required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10 and 21-2, 24-29, drawn to method implemented in a data collector node (DCN), where method comprises: determining whether any DCN is registered as a data collection coordinator for the DSN, upon determining there is no registered data collection coordinator for the DSN, transmitting to the network node a request to register as the data collection coordinator of the DSN; upon determining the DCN is itself the data collection coordinator, coordinating data collection from the DSN; and upon determining a second DCN is registered as the data collection coordinator, transmitting to the second DCN a subscription request for data collection from the DSN - classified in H04L 65/1043 {Gateway controllers}.
II. Claims 39-42, drawn to method implemented in a data source node (DSN), where the method comprises: selecting the DCN as a data collection coordinator for the DSN based on a first event exposure subscription from the DCN and subscribing for a status report of the DCN at the network node - classified in H04L 41/0853 {Retrieval of network configuration by actively collecting configuration information}
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility of controlling or regulating window size based on optimal window size for data. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different group/subgroup or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112/(a).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
This restriction is being made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
5. This action is in response to communication filed on 07/20/2023.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10, 21-22, 24-29 and 39-42 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10, 21, 22, 24-29 and 39-42 has been amended.
Claims 4-5, 7, 9, 11-20, 23, 30-38 and 43-46 are canceled.
Claims 39-42 is cancelled based on restriction/election made on 08/13/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 1-3, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20220166645 A1) in view of Blanc et al. (US 20050055418 A1, hereinafter Blanc) and AIShaikh et al. (US 20150362619 A1, hereinafter AIShaikh).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a method implemented in a data collector node, DCN (Fig. 104(A-N)), configured to communicate at least with a network node (Fig. 102) and a data source node, DSN (Fig. 1(108) and [34]: Each controller 104 is configured to control one or more operational parameters of one or more devices 108.), the method comprising:
determining a data collection coordination, the determined data collection coordination being associated with the DSN ([46]: the controller determines the online quantity and statuses of other controllers in the group (Operation 208). Each controller may maintain, in memory, a table of the statuses of other controllers in the group (i.e. determining controller node for the devices 108)) and comprising:
determining whether any DCN is registered as a data collection coordinator for the DSN ([47]: The controller determines the current master controller for the group (Operation 210) (i.e. determine master controller is assigned for devices 108). [51, 62]: The controller determines that it is the current master, then it continuously monitors the status of any slave controllers (Operation 228). The slave 612A is configured to transmit information as process values to the master 602 (i.e. master controller collects the information/data of the slave devices));
upon determining the DCN is itself the data collection coordinator, coordinating data collection from the DSN ([48, 51]: The controller determines its current status (Operation 212). The controller may be one of: (a) a solo controller, i.e., the only controller in the group that is online, despite group control being enabled; (b) a slave controller, i.e., another controller in the group is the current master; or (c) the current master controller for one or more other controllers. At Operation 212, the controller determines that it is a solo controller, then it proceeds to control only a single device (Operation 204) (i.e. determine itself as a controller for the devices). [51, 62]: The controller determines that it is the current master, then it continuously monitors the status of any slave controllers (Operation 228). The slave 612A is configured to transmit information as process values to the master 602 (i.e. master controller collects the information/data of the slave devices)); and
Li however does not teach upon determining there is no registered data collection coordinator for the DSN, transmitting a request to register as the data collection coordinator of the DSN; upon determining a second DCN is registered as the data collection coordinator, transmitting to the second DCN a subscription request for data collection from the DSN.
Blanc teaches upon determining there is no registered data collection coordinator for the DSN, transmitting a request to register as the data collection coordinator of the DSN ([99]: In FIG. 10, when the T2 timer expires in operation 950, it means that no node has detected a better potential master node than the present node. In other words, no node has sent a “potential master” message as counter-proposal to the “potential master” message of the node. Thus, the node sends a “Elected Master” message with the “my-id” identification of the node to all node of the cluster in operation 952. In other words, this node sends a message meaning it takes the master role (i.e. when there is no designated master, node sends request to take master role). [111, 125]: Once the master node is elected, the specific server (CCR server which may be LDAP server) on that node is regarded as the definitive source for information, in other words the main server. Comparing with an ordinary node in a cluster, the “master” node has the additional capabilities of: monitoring all cluster nodes, gathering nodes status information for all cluster nodes, issuing regularly nodes status information to all cluster nodes (i.e. master node is the data collector and coordinator)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Blanc and upon determining there is no registered data collection coordinator for the DSN, transmitting a request to register as the data collection coordinator of the DSN. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order for master election between the candidate nodes (Blanc, [06]).
Li in view of Blanc however does not teach upon determining a second DCN is registered as the data collection coordinator, transmitting to the second DCN a subscription request for data collection from the DSN.
AIShaikh teaches upon determining a second DCN is registered as the data collection coordinator ([18]: The data processing system also includes a plurality of processor nodes established as subscribers to receive data from the designated master publisher. The instructions also cause the master publisher node to assemble in the data memory of the data processing system the processed data transmitted from the subscriber processor nodes (i.e. master publisher node is the data collection coordinator that collects the data from subscriber processor nodes and also sends data to the subscriber nodes). Fig. 6(102-104]) and [56]: The implementation starts at step 102 by designating the master node 20 of the cluster as the main publisher. The master node 20, in turn, spawns two threads using OpenMP to parallelize its two main functions: initializing the node to be a publisher (P0) with the selected QoS profile; and specifying during step 104 the domain which the publishers and subscribers are to work on, which is domain-0 in the example implementation (i.e. determine the master publisher information by nodes)), transmitting to the second DCN a subscription request for data collection from the DSN (Fig. 5(86-88) and [55, 59]: On the subscribers' side (i.e., the workers), each node 24 during step 86 initiates itself as a subscriber to the main publisher P0, assigns an ID to itself (Wi), and during step 88 starts receiving the data for computational processing.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li in view of Blanc to incorporate the teachings of AIShaikh and upon determining a second DCN is registered as the data collection coordinator, transmitting to the second DCN a subscription request for data collection from the DSN. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order for receiving the data for computational processing (AIShaikh, [55]).
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Blanc and AIShaikh teaches the method of Claim 1.
Li teaches wherein determining whether any DCN is registered as the data collection coordinator for the DSN comprises transmitting to the network node a request to check if any DCN is registered for the DSN ([46-47]: The controller determines the online quantity and statuses of other controllers in the group (Operation 208). Each controller may maintain, in memory, a table of the statuses of other controllers in the group. The controller may update the table, for example, based on signals received from other controllers in the group. The controller determines the current master controller for the group (Operation 210) (i.e. checking with other controllers to determine if there is a current master controller for devices))
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Blanc and AIShaikh teaches the method of Claim 2.
Li teaches wherein the network node is a node implementing at least one of a user data management function ([34, 36]: A user interface 102 refers to hardware and/or software configured to facilitate communications between a user and a controller 104. For example, the user interface 102 may allow a user to configure controller groups, specify setpoints (e.g., temperature and/or humidity setpoints), and/or specify one or more other parameters used by the controller 104 (i.e. user interface along with controller 104 provides user data management)) and a network resource function.
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of Blanc and AIShaikh teaches the method of Claim 2.
Li teaches wherein determining the DCN is itself the data collection coordinator comprises receiving a first response from the network node indicating the DCN itself is the data collection coordinator for the DSN ([46]: The controller determines the online quantity and statuses of other controllers in the group (Operation 208). Each controller may maintain, in memory, a table of the statuses of other controllers in the group. The controller may update the table, for example, based on signals received from other controllers in the group. [48, 51]: The controller determines its current status (Operation 212). At Operation 212, the controller determines that it is a solo controller, then it proceeds to control only a single device (Operation 204) (i.e. determine itself as a controller for the devices based on information received from other controllers in the group))
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Blanc and AIShaikh teaches the method of Claim 1.
Li teaches wherein determining the second DCN is registered as the data collection coordinator comprises receiving a first response from the network node indicating the second DCN is the data collection coordinator for the DSN ([46]: The controller determines the online quantity and statuses of other controllers in the group (Operation 208). Each controller may maintain, in memory, a table of the statuses of other controllers in the group. The controller may update the table, for example, based on signals received from other controllers in the group. [50]: If, at Operation 212, the controller determines that it is a slave controller, then it continuously monitors the master status (Operation 220). In general, the controller may monitor the master status by monitoring the quantities and statuses of other controllers in the group (including their respective controller identifiers that may be used to select a master controller), including any controller (which may be itself) that has been designated as master (i.e. determine other controller is a master controller for the devices based on information received from other controllers in the group))
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Blanc and AIShaikh further in view of Decarreau et al. (US 20240056362 A1, hereinafter Decarreau).
Regarding claim 10, Li in view of Blanc and AIShaikh teaches the method of Claim 1.
Li in view of Blanc and AIShaikh however does not teach wherein the DCN comprises a data collection coordination function, DCCF, the network node comprises a unified data repository, and the DSN comprises a network function, NF.
Decarreau teaches wherein the DCN comprises a data collection coordination function, DCCF ([124]: Messaging Framework 603 may interface with DCCF 604 over a DCCF adaptor for coordinating request and data delivery.), the network node comprises a unified data repository ([124]: FIG. 6 shows a Data Management Framework 601 for a Data Provider comprising a Data Repository 602), and the DSN comprises a network function, NF ([125]: The DCCF 604 may interface with a 5G core network function 607 such as, for example, an NRF, a UDM and/or a Binding Support Function (BSF). The DCCF 604 may also identify the 5G core network function 607 that serves the Data Consumer/UE 605 making the Data Request).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li in view of Blanc and AIShaikh to incorporate the teachings of Decarreau and the DCN comprises a data collection coordination function, DCCF, the network node comprises a unified data repository, and the DSN comprises a network function, NF. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to enable the collection and distribution of any data from sources to consumers (Decarreau, [126]).
Claims 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20220166645 A1) in view of Blanc et al. (US 20050055418 A1, hereinafter Blanc).
Regarding claim 21, Li teaches a method implemented in a network node configured to communicate with at least one data collector node, DCN, the method comprising:
receiving a request from the DCN to check if any DCN is registered as a data collection coordinator for the DSN ([46-47]: The controller determines the online quantity and statuses of other controllers in the group (Operation 208). Each controller may maintain, in memory, a table of the statuses of other controllers in the group. The controller may update the table, for example, based on signals received from other controllers in the group. The controller may update the table at particular intervals. The controller determines the current master controller for the group (Operation 210) (i.e. controller request/receives status of other controllers in the group and master controller information). [51, 62]: The controller determines that it is the current master, then it continuously monitors the status of any slave controllers (Operation 228). The slave 612A is configured to transmit information as process values to the master 602).
Li however does not teach receiving a registration request from the DCN to register as a coordinator node for the DSN when no DCN has registered as the data collection coordinator for the DSN.
Blanc teaches receiving a registration request from the DCN to register as a coordinator node for the DSN when no DCN has registered as the data collection coordinator for the DSN ([99]: In FIG. 10, when the T2 timer expires in operation 950, it means that no node has detected a better potential master node than the present node. In other words, no node has sent a “potential master” message as counter-proposal to the “potential master” message of the node. Thus, the node sends a “Elected Master” message with the “my-id” identification of the node to all node of the cluster in operation 952. In other words, this node sends a message meaning it takes the master role (i.e. when there is no designated master, node sends request to take master role). [111, 125]: Once the master node is elected, the specific server (CCR server which may be LDAP server) on that node is regarded as the definitive source for information, in other words the main server. Comparing with an ordinary node in a cluster, the “master” node has the additional capabilities of: monitoring all cluster nodes, gathering nodes status information for all cluster nodes, issuing regularly nodes status information to all cluster nodes (i.e. master node is the data collector and coordinator)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Blanc and receiving a registration request from the DCN to register as a coordinator node for the DSN when no DCN has registered as the data collection coordinator for the DSN. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order for master election between the candidate nodes (Blanc, [06]).
Regarding claim 22, Li in view of Blanc teaches the method of Claim 21.
Li teaches further comprising: determining whether any DCN, including the DCN transmitting the request, is registered as the data collection coordinator for the DSN ([46-47]: The controller determines the online quantity and statuses of other controllers in the group (Operation 208). Each controller may maintain, in memory, a table of the statuses of other controllers in the group. The controller may update the table, for example, based on signals received from other controllers in the group. The controller may update the table at particular intervals. The controller determines the current master controller for the group (Operation 210). [51]: If, at Operation 212, the controller determines that it is the current master, then it continuously monitors the status of any slave controllers (Operation 228) (i.e. controller determines status of all controllers in the group including itself)).
Regarding claim 24, Li in view of Blanc teaches the method of Claim 21.
Li teaches wherein the method further includes: transmitting a response to the DCN indicating whether one of: no data collection coordinator is registered for the DSN; and at least one data collection coordinator is registered for the DSN ([46-51]: The controller determines the online quantity and statuses of other controllers in the group (Operation 208). Each controller may maintain, in memory, a table of the statuses of other controllers in the group. The controller may update the table, for example, based on signals received from other controllers in the group. The controller may update the table at particular intervals. The controller determines the current master controller for the group (Operation 210) (i.e. determining if another controller is a master controller for devices based on information received other controllers)).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Blanc further in view of Agerstam et al. (US 9860677 B1, hereafter Agerstam).
Regarding claim 25, Li in view of Blanc teaches the method of Claim 24.
Li in view of Blanc however does not teach wherein the at least one data collection coordinator indicates the requesting DCN is already the data collection coordinator for the DSN.
Agerstam teaches wherein the at least one data collection coordinator indicates the requesting DCN is already the data collection coordinator for the DSN ([Col 9, 24-34]: The network 400 has a coordination protocol 402 between the gateways 404. The gateways 404 determine gateway ownership of the sensors 406. Each GW 404 owns a set of sensor devices 406 and also additionally looks for other candidate sensor devices 406 in proximity. [Col 10, 9-12]: The coordination protocol discussed with respect to FIG. 4 generally allows each GW 404 to have a holistic view of all of the sensor devices 406, including which GW currently owns a specific sensor device (i.e. determine data collection coordinator of the sensor device as itself). [Col 14, 9-12]: At block 714, the IoT sensors sense or measure data. At block 716, the gateway devices receive the data from the IoT sensors. The method may also include the gateway devices providing the data to a cloud.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li in view of Blanc to incorporate the teachings of Agerstam and wherein the at least one data collection coordinator indicates the requesting DCN is already the data collection coordinator for the DSN. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings for centralized coordination for gateway ownership of sensors (Agerstam, [Col 9, 23-24]).
Claim 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Blanc further in view of Vanjare et al. (US 20220058042 A1, hereinafter Vanjare).
Regarding claim 26, Li in view of Blanc teaches the method of Claim 21.
Li in view of Blanc however does not teach wherein the received registration request causes a mapping to be maintained at the network node, the mapping being between at least one parameter associated with the DCN and at least another parameter associated with the DSN.
Vanjare teaches wherein the received registration request causes a mapping to be maintained at the network node ([121, 165]: An application, such as an EMS application 402 (HG. 4), may provide data representing telemetry data collection intent to a telemetry controller 221 (702). As described above, a telemetry data collection intent may be a high level description of requirements for collecting telemetry data from devices in a network system. Telemetry controller 221 can allocate the device to an instance of a plurality of telemetry collectors based on the supported telemetry protocol of the device (712) (i.e. telemetry controller 221 receives request to register as a data collector for device from EMS 402 ). Telemetry controller 221 can maintain an allocation map of telemetry collectors 214 in telemetry configuration database 404 that indicates how devices are allocated to telemetry collectors 214.), the mapping being between at least one parameter associated with the DCN and at least another parameter associated with the DSN ([121]: There may be more than one telemetry collector 214 for a particular protocol. Telemetry controller 221 can maintain an allocation map of telemetry collectors 214 in telemetry configuration database 404 that indicates how devices are allocated to telemetry collectors 214. Telemetry controller 221 may periodically redetermine the allocation map and reassign devices depending on the protocol and the loads experienced by telemetry collectors 214 for the protocol).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li in view of Blanc to incorporate the teachings of Vanjare and the received registration request causes a mapping to be maintained at the network node, the mapping being between at least one parameter associated with the DCN and at least another parameter associated with the DSN. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to facilitate a telemetry service that is easy to utilize and is scalable (Vanjare, [164]).
Regarding claim 27, Li in view of Blanc and Vanjare teaches the method of Claim 26.
Li teaches wherein the at least another parameter associated with the DSN is a first identification of the DSN, and the at least one parameter associated with the DCN is a second identification of the DCN ([50]: he controller may monitor the master status by monitoring the quantities and statuses of other controllers in the group (including their respective controller identifiers that may be used to select a master controller), including any controller (which may be itself) that has been designated as master).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Blanc further in view of AIShaikh et al. (US 20150362619 A1, hereinafter AIShaikh).
Regarding claim 28, Li in view of Blanc teaches the method of Claim 24.
Li in view of Blanc however does not teach wherein when the response indicates at least one data collection coordinator is registered for the DSN and the at least one data collection coordinator is a second DCN, the response causes the DCN to transmit to the second DCN a subscription request for data collection from the DSN.
AIShaikh teaches wherein when the response indicates at least one data collection coordinator is registered for the DSN and the at least one data collection coordinator is a second DCN ([18]: The data processing system also includes a plurality of processor nodes established as subscribers to receive data from the designated master publisher. The instructions also cause the master publisher node to assemble in the data memory of the data processing system the processed data transmitted from the subscriber processor nodes (i.e. master publisher node is the data collection coordinator that collects the data from subscriber processor nodes and also sends data to the subscriber nodes). Fig. 6(102-104]) and [56]: The implementation starts at step 102 by designating the master node 20 of the cluster as the main publisher. The master node 20, in turn, spawns two threads using OpenMP to parallelize its two main functions: initializing the node to be a publisher (P0) with the selected QoS profile; and specifying during step 104 the domain which the publishers and subscribers are to work on, which is domain-0 in the example implementation (i.e. determine the master publisher information by nodes)), the response causes the DCN to transmit to the second DCN a subscription request for data collection from the DSN (Fig. 5(86-88) and [55, 59]: On the subscribers' side (i.e., the workers), each node 24 during step 86 initiates itself as a subscriber to the main publisher P0, assigns an ID to itself (Wi), and during step 88 starts receiving the data for computational processing.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li in view of Blanc to incorporate the teachings of AIShaikh and when the response indicates at least one data collection coordinator is registered for the DSN and the at least one data collection coordinator is a second DCN, the response causes the DCN to transmit to the second DCN a subscription request for data collection from the DSN. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order for receiving the data for computational processing (AIShaikh, [55]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Blanc further in view of Decarreau.
Regarding claim 29, Li in view of Blanc teaches the method of Claim 21.
Li in view of Blanc however does not teach wherein the DCN comprises a data collection coordination function, DCCF, the network node comprises at least one of a unified data management, UDM, a network repository function, NRF, a unified data repository, and a binding support function, BSF, and the DSN comprises a network function.
Decarreau teaches wherein the DCN comprises a data collection coordination function, DCCF ([124]: Messaging Framework 603 may interface with DCCF 604 over a DCCF adaptor for coordinating request and data delivery.), the network node comprises at least one of a unified data management, UDM, a network repository function ([124]: FIG. 6 shows a Data Management Framework 601 for a Data Provider comprising a Data Repository 602), NRF, a unified data repository, and a binding support function, BSF, and the DSN comprises a network function ([125]: The DCCF 604 may interface with a 5G core network function 607 such as, for example, an NRF, a UDM and/or a Binding Support Function (BSF). The DCCF 604 may also identify the 5G core network function 607 that serves the Data Consumer/UE 605 making the Data Request).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li in view of Blanc to incorporate the teachings of Decarreau and the DCN comprises a data collection coordination function, DCCF, the network node comprises a network repository function, NRF, and the DSN comprises a network function. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to enable the collection and distribution of any data from sources to consumers (Decarreau, [126]).
Additional References
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Kanter, US 20200137540 A1: DISTRIBUTED CONTEXT-SHARING NETWORKS.
b. Bute et al., US 20170070599 A1: CLIENT-INITIATED LEADER ELECTION IN DISTRIBUTED CLIENT-SERVER SYSTEMS.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUJANA KHAKURAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3704. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SUJANA KHAKURAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2453
/KAMAL B DIVECHA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2453
