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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the 1st sentence recites “The present disclosure provides .”, which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 - 10, 15 - 16, 26, 28 - 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Landais et al. (US 20200007632 A1; CN version provided in the International Search Report).
Regarding claim 1, Landais discloses a method in a first Network Function, NF (Abstract discloses “…a NF service consumer subscribes to notifications from a NF service producer, receiving, by the NF service producer, subscription information …”; wherein the 1st NF is the NF service consumer), comprising:
transmitting, to a second NF, a subscription request for subscribing to a notification from the second NF (Abstract discloses “…a NF service consumer subscribes to notifications from a NF service producer, receiving, by the NF service producer, subscription information …”; wherein the 2nd NF is NF service producer; Fig. 1, step 110; [0029]), the subscription request containing:
a Uniform Resource Identifier, URI, of an NF Repository Function, NRF, to be used to discover an alternative NF for the notification for callback when the original NF is no longer available ([0029] discloses “ …the NF service consumer 101 may send an HTTP POST request to a SMF 102. The HTTP POST request may include: “{apiRoot}/nsmf-eventexposure/v1/subscriptions/” as Resource URI …,”;
Abstract discloses “The receiving of the subscription information with the name of the consumer service allows the NF service producer to discover a corresponding NF service from an alternative NF instance within a NF set.”;
[0025] discloses “…may find an alternative AMF acting as a NF Service Consumer within an AMF set using a NRF discovery service. This may be desirable, for example, when the NF Service Producer needs to send a notification to the AMF but the last known AMF is no longer available..”;
[0027] discloses similar function).
Regarding claim 3, Landais discloses the URI is contained in a HyperText Transfer Protocol, HTTP, custom header in the subscription request ([0029] discloses “ …to subscribe to event notifications, at 110, the NF service consumer 101 may send an HTTP POST request to a SMF 102. The HTTP POST request may include: “{apiRoot}/nsmf-eventexposure/v1/subscriptions/” as Resource URI, and a Nsmf_EventExposure data structure as the request body.”; wherein the custom header is the “{apiRoot}/nsmf-eventexposure/v1/subscriptions/).
Regarding claim 5, Landais discloses wherein each of the first NF and the alternative NF is an NF consumer and the second NF is an NF producer (Abstract discloses “…a NF service consumer subscribes to notifications from a NF service producer, receiving, by the NF service producer, subscription information …”; wherein the 1st NF is the NF service consumer and the 2nd NF is NF service producer; [0025] discloses “….may find an alternative AMF acting as a NF Service Consumer …” ).
Claim 7 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 7 reciting receiving operations as seen from the 2nd NF side.
Claim 8 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, Landais discloses transmitting an NF discovery request for discovering the alternative NF to the NRF using the URI ([0028], 1st sentence discloses “…the NF Service Producer may be configured to perform a discovery of the NF Service Consumer (e.g., an AMF) providing a wildcard service name or not providing any service name at all….”; );
receiving, from the NRF, an NF profile of the alternative NF ([0028] discloses “The NRF may then return the candidate NF (e.g. AMF) profiles with all the services they support.”);
and transmitting the notification to the alternative NF ([0028] discloses “The NF Service Producer may use the address endpoints (IP addresses and port information or a Fully Qualified Domain Name) registered in the Consumer NF (e.g. AMF) Profile, at the NF level, in the NRF, as the destination endpoints for sending the notification.“).
Regarding claim 10, Landais discloses the NF discovery request is transmitted in response to detecting a failure of the first NF or a failure in delivery of the notification to the first NF ([0025] discloses “….but the last known AMF is no longer available due to a scale-in operation or failure.”; [0036] also discloses AMF failures).
Regarding claim 15, Landais discloses the URI is an NRF Application Programming Interface, API, URI for an NF discovery service (page 5, Table 2, corresponding to 3rd attribute name “version” in left column, the last column discloses “The API versions supported by the NF Service…”; corresponding to 7th attribute name “apiPrefix” in left column, the last column discloses “API URIs…”).
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claim 26 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 26 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations. Processor, memory, communication interface are disclosed by Landais (Fig. 4; [0054]; [0070]).
Claim 28 is similarly analyzed as claim 7, with claim 28 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations. Processor, memory, communication interface are disclosed by Landais (Fig. 4; [0054]; [0070]).
Claim 29 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Claim 30 is similarly analyzed as claim 9.
Claim 31 is similarly analyzed as claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4, 11 - 14, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landais et al. (US 20200007632 A1; CN version provided in the International Search Report) in view of Landais et al. (US 20210240554 A1; hereafter Landais 554).
Regarding claim 4, Landais does not disclose the subscription request further contains a binding indication for reselection of the alternative NF.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Landais 554 discloses the subscription request further contains a binding indication for reselection of the alternative NF ([0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method as taught by Landais 554, in the system of Landais because this would allow a specific NF to be selected.
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed as claim 4. The limitation “and the NF discovery request is for discovering the alternative NF based on the binding indication” is an obvious consequence of the 1st part of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Landais does not disclose transmitting the notification to a Service Communication Proxy, SCP, between the first NF and the second NF, the notification containing the URI.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Landais 554 discloses transmitting the notification to a Service Communication Proxy, SCP, between the first NF and the second NF, the notification containing the URI (Figs. 1 & 2; [0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method as taught by Landais 554, in the system of Landais because this would allow the SCP to “to select an NF service consumer that supports receiving notifications” ([0084], 2nd sentence).
Regarding claim 13, Landais discloses the URI is contained in a HyperText Transfer Protocol, HTTP, custom header in the notification ([0079]).
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed as claim 4. The limitation “the notification further contains the binding indication” is an obvious consequence of the 1st part of claim 14.
Regarding claim 27, Landais discloses the URI is contained in a HyperText Transfer Protocol, HTTP, custom header in the subscription request ([0029] discloses “ …to subscribe to event notifications, at 110, the NF service consumer 101 may send an HTTP POST request to a SMF 102. The HTTP POST request may include: “{apiRoot}/nsmf-eventexposure/v1/subscriptions/” as Resource URI, and a Nsmf_EventExposure data structure as the request body.”; wherein the custom header is the “{apiRoot}/nsmf-eventexposure/v1/subscriptions/);
each of the first NF and the alternative NF is an NF consumer and the second NF is an NF producer (Abstract discloses “…a NF service consumer subscribes to notifications from a NF service producer, receiving, by the NF service producer, subscription information …”; wherein the 1st NF is the NF service consumer and the 2nd NF is NF service producer; [0025] discloses “…. may find an alternative AMF acting as a NF Service Consumer …”).
The limitation “the subscription request further contains a binding indication for reselection of the alternative NF” is analyzed as in claim 4 above.
Claims 18 - 19, 21 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landais et al. (US 20200007632 A1; CN version provided in the International Search Report) in view of WO2021063657A1 (which has been provided in the International Search Report).
Regarding claim 18, Landais discloses:
transmitting to the NRF by using the URI, an NF discovery request for discovering an alternative NF for the notification ([0025] discloses “….find an alternative AMF acting as a NF Service Consumer within an AMF set using a NRF discovery service …”);
receiving from the NRF, an NF profile of the alternative NF ([0028] discloses “The NRF may then return the candidate NF (e.g. AMF) profiles with all the services they support.”);
and transmitting the notification to the alternative NF ([0028] discloses “The NF Service Producer may use the address endpoints (IP addresses and port information or a Fully Qualified Domain Name) registered in the Consumer NF (e.g. AMF) Profile, at the NF level, in the NRF, as the destination endpoints for sending the notification.“).
Landais does not disclose using a Service Communication Proxy, SCP, between a first Network Function, NF, and a second NF;
receiving from the second NF, a notification to be forwarded to the first NF, the notification containing information on a network slice to which the first NF belongs;
obtain from a Network Slice Selection Function, NSSF, a Uniform Resource Identifier, URI, of an NF Repository Function, NRF, associated with the network slice using the information.
In the same field of endeavor, however, WO2021063657A1 discloses:
using a Service Communication Proxy, SCP, between a first Network Function, NF, and a second NF (Figs. 4 & 5; page 5, lines 16+ discloses “The SCP routes messages between NF service consumers and NF service producers and may perform discovery and associated selection of the NF service producer on behalf of a NF service consumer.”);
receiving from the second NF, a notification to be forwarded to the first NF, the notification containing information on a network slice to which the first NF belongs (page 34, lines 8 discloses network slice assistance information);
obtain from a Network Slice Selection Function, NSSF, a Uniform Resource Identifier, URI, of an NF Repository Function, NRF, associated with the network slice using the information (page 5, lines 26+ disclose callback URI; page 5, last line – page 6, 1st 3 lines).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method as taught by Landais 554, in the system of Landais because this would allow the SCP to select an appropriate NF service.
Regarding claim 19, Landais discloses the URI is obtained and/or the NF discovery request is transmitted in response to detecting a failure in delivery of the notification to the first NF ([0025] discloses “….but the last known AMF is no longer available due to a scale-in operation or failure.”; [0036] also discloses AMF failures).
Regarding claim 21, Landais discloses the information is Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information, S-NSSAI, and/or the URI is an NRF Application Programming Interface, API, URI for an NF discovery service (page 5, Table 2, corresponding to 3rd attribute name “version” in left column, the last column discloses “The API versions supported by the NF Service…”; corresponding to 7th attribute name “apiPrefix” in left column, the last column discloses “API URIs…”).
Regarding claim 22, Landais discloses wherein each of the first NF and the alternative NF is an NF consumer and the second NF is an NF producer (Abstract discloses “…a NF service consumer subscribes to notifications from a NF service producer, receiving, by the NF service producer, subscription information …”; wherein the 1st NF is the NF service consumer and the 2nd NF is NF service producer; [0025] discloses “….may find an alternative AMF acting as a NF Service Consumer …” ).
9. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landais et al. (US 20200007632 A1; CN version provided in the International Search Report) in view of WO2021063657A1 (which has been provided in the International Search Report) and further in view of Landais et al. (US 20210240554 A1; hereafter Landais 554).
Regarding claim 20, Landais does not disclose the subscription request further contains a binding indication for reselection of the alternative NF and the NF discovery request is for discovering the alternative NF based on the binding indication.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Landais 554 discloses the subscription request further contains a binding indication for reselection of the alternative NF and the NF discovery request is for discovering the alternative NF based on the binding indication ([0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method as taught by Landais 554, in the system of Landais because this would allow a specific NF to be selected.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to network function (NF) discovery:
Rajput et al. (US 20220286518 A1) discloses methods, systems, and computer readable media for providing for reliable service-based interface (sbi) message transport using zero event notification messages.
Krishnan et al. (US 11283883 B1) discloses Methods, Systems, And Computer Readable Media For Providing Optimized Binding Support Function (BSF) Packet Data Unit (PDU) Session Binding Discovery Responses.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632