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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, the Examiner suggests changing to “… communicated from [[a]] the first NF to from [[a]] the second NF ...” claim 14 is objected for the same reason as stated above.
Appropriate correction(s) is/are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sharma (US 20240064105).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 14, Sharma teaches A system for managing messages ([0001], “managing traffic processed by a target network function of a communication network.”) between two or more servers in a data network ([Fig.14], Network Exposure Function, NEF and Policy Control Function, PCF), the system comprising:
one or more computer processing components configured to execute operations comprising:
assigning a first priority marking to a first message ([0188], “The NEF receives a message from AF2 regarding QoS Session update for an existing session.” And [0186], “The NWDAF provides a recommendation to prioritize the traffic from AF2.” In other words, traffic originates from AF2 will have a high priority.) to be communicated from a first server to a second server ([0190 and Fig.14, step 7], “Based on the recommendation received from NWDAF, the NEF processes the request from AF2.” The traffic from AF2 is transmitted from the NEF to PCF);
assigning a second priority marking to a second message ([0183], “The NEF receives a message from AF1.” And [0191], “The NEF stores the requests from AF1 & AF3 to process at a later stage when CPU load reduces to normal levels.” Traffic originates from AF1 has a low priority.) to be communicated from a first server to a second server ([Fig.14], from NEF to PCF), wherein the first marking is different than the second marking (traffic from AF2 has a higher priority than traffic from AF1.); and
processing the first message and the second message based on the first priority marking and the second priority marking ([0190] “7. Based on the recommendation received from NWDAF, the NEF processes the request from AF2 for update of QoS Sessions.” And [0191] “8. The NEF stores the requests from AF1 & AF3 to process at a later stage when CPU load reduces to normal levels.”).
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 17, Sharma teaches wherein the first priority marking indicates a higher priority than the second priority marking ([0190] “7. Based on the recommendation received from NWDAF, the NEF processes the request from AF2 for update of QoS Sessions.” And [0191] “8. The NEF stores the requests from AF1 & AF3 to process at a later stage when CPU load reduces to normal levels.”).
Regarding claim(s) 18, Sharma teaches wherein the first server is a network function (NF) and the second server is an NF ([Fig.14], Network Exposure Function, NEF and Policy Control Function, PCF).
Regarding claim(s) 19, Sharma teaches wherein processing the first message and the second message comprises routing the first message to the second server before the second message ([0190] “7. Based on the recommendation received from NWDAF, the NEF processes the request from AF2 for update of QoS Sessions.” And [0191] “8. The NEF stores the requests from AF1 & AF3 to process at a later stage when CPU load reduces to normal levels.”).
Regarding claim(s) 20, Sharma teaches wherein processing the first message and the second message comprises queuing the first message for transmission to the second server ahead of the second message ([0190] “7. Based on the recommendation received from NWDAF, the NEF processes the request from AF2 for update of QoS Sessions.” And [0191] “8. The NEF stores the requests from AF1 & AF3 to process at a later stage when CPU load reduces to normal levels.”).
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) 1-2, 4-6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (US 20240064105) in view of Krishan (US 20230284081).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1, Sharma teaches A method for managing messages ([0001], “managing traffic processed by a target network function of a communication network.”) between two or more network functions (NFs) ([Fig.14], Network Exposure Function, NEF and Policy Control Function, PCF) in a core network of a mobile communication network ([Fig.14 and 0194], “5G Core networks.”), the method comprising:
determining a pre-determined... threshold is exceeded on the mobile communication network ([0183], “The NEF detects that it is experiencing a congestion situation,” “Load=70%”);
based on the determination ([0183], “As part of overload control, the NEF decides to implement traffic prioritization so that low priority traffic can be delayed or discarded, so ensuring the NEF is able to provide services in a stable manner to high priority services and subscribers.”), assigning a first priority marking to a first message ([0188], “The NEF receives a message from AF2 regarding QoS Session update for an existing session.” And [0186], “The NWDAF provides a recommendation to prioritize the traffic from AF2.” In other words, traffic originates from AF2 will have a high priority.) to be communicated from a first NF to a second NF ([0190 and Fig.14, step 7], “Based on the recommendation received from NWDAF, the NEF processes the request from AF2.” The traffic from AF2 is transmitted from the NEF to PCF); and
based on the determination ([0183], “As part of overload control, the NEF decides to implement traffic prioritization so that low priority traffic can be delayed or discarded, so ensuring the NEF is able to provide services in a stable manner to high priority services and subscribers.”), assigning a second priority marking to a second message ([0183], “The NEF receives a message from AF1.” And [0191], “The NEF stores the requests from AF1 & AF3 to process at a later stage when CPU load reduces to normal levels.” Traffic originates from AF1 has a low priority.) to be communicated from the first NF to the second NF ([Fig.14], from NEF to PCF).
However, Sharma does not specifically disclose pre-determined traffic threshold.
In an analogous art, Krishan discloses determining a pre-determined traffic threshold is exceeded on the mobile communication network ([0017], “A network exposure function (NEF) ... may become congested or overloaded, e.g., due to large amount of messages from network/UE devices.”),
based on the determination ([0040], “during a congestion or overload condition”), assigning a first priority marking to a first message ([0040], “NF 200 (e.g., an SCEF or NEF 118) or DM 204 may receive a message ... NF 200 or DM 204 may use a context priority value associated with the NIDD context to calculate or compute an absolute priority value” for the message.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Sharma to specify traffic threshold as taught by Krishan. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to determine congestion condition.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 2, Sharma teaches wherein the pre-determined threshold of traffic is exceeded on the first NF ([0183], “The NEF detects that it is experiencing a congestion situation,” “Load=70%”).
Regarding claim(s) 4, Sharma teaches processing the first message and the second message based on the first priority marking being higher priority than the second priority marking ([0190 and Fig.14, step 7], “Based on the recommendation received from NWDAF, the NEF processes the request from AF2.”).
Regarding claim(s) 5, Sharma teaches wherein processing the first message and the second message comprises routing the first message before the second message based on the first priority marking being higher priority than the second priority marking ([0190] “7. Based on the recommendation received from NWDAF, the NEF processes the request from AF2 for update of QoS Sessions.” And [0191] “8. The NEF stores the requests from AF1 & AF3 to process at a later stage when CPU load reduces to normal levels.”).
Regarding claim(s) 6, Sharma teaches wherein processing the first message comprises queuing the first message ahead of the second message for transmission based on the first priority marking being higher priority than the second priority marking ([0190] “7. Based on the recommendation received from NWDAF, the NEF processes the request from AF2 for update of QoS Sessions.” And [0191] “8. The NEF stores the requests from AF1 & AF3 to process at a later stage when CPU load reduces to normal levels.”).
Regarding claim(s) 16, Sharma teaches wherein processing the first message and the second message is in response to determining that a pre-determined ... threshold is exceeded ([0183], “The NEF detects that it is experiencing a congestion situation,” “Load=70%”).
However, Sharma does not specifically disclose pre-determined traffic threshold.
In an analogous art, Krishan discloses determining a pre-determined traffic threshold is exceeded ([0017], “A network exposure function (NEF) ... may become congested or overloaded, e.g., due to large amount of messages from network/UE devices.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Sharma to specify traffic threshold as taught by Krishan. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to determine congestion condition.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Krishan, and further in view of Wang (US 20220377579).
Regarding claim(s) 3/13, Wang teaches wherein the pre-determined threshold of traffic is exceeded on the second NF ([0059], “The NRF device 100 may determine whether the target network function is overloaded based on the usage conditions.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Sharma to specify determining overload condition a target NF as taught by Wang. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to trigger an update. .
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Krishan, and further in view of Hoole (US 20210119941).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 8, Sharma teaches A method for managing messages ([0001], “managing traffic processed by a target network function of a communication network.”) between two or more network functions (NFs) ([Fig.14], Network Exposure Function, NEF and Policy Control Function, PCF) in a core network of a mobile communication network ([Fig.14 and 0194], “5G Core networks.”), the method comprising:
receiving a first message ([0188], “The NEF receives a message from AF2 regarding QoS Session update for an existing session.”) to be communicated from a first NF to a second NF ([0190 and Fig.14, step 7], “Based on the recommendation received from NWDAF, the NEF processes the request from AF2.” The traffic from AF2 is transmitted from the NEF to PCF);
receiving a second message ([0183], “The NEF receives a message from AF1.”) to be communicated from a first NF to a second NF ([Fig.14], from NEF to PCF);
determining that a pre-determined ... threshold is exceeded ([0183], “The NEF detects that it is experiencing a congestion situation,” “Load=70%”);
inspecting the first message to determine a first priority marking ([0188], “The NEF receives a message from AF2 regarding QoS Session update for an existing session.” And [0186], “The NWDAF provides a recommendation to prioritize the traffic from AF2.” The NEF determines that traffic from AF2 has a high priority.) and inspecting the second message to determine a second priority marking ([0183], “The NEF receives a message from AF1.” And [0191], “The NEF stores the requests from AF1 & AF3 to process at a later stage when CPU load reduces to normal levels.” Traffic originates from AF1 has a low priority.), the first priority marking indicates a higher priority than the second priority marking ([0190] “7. Based on the recommendation received from NWDAF, the NEF processes the request from AF2 for update of QoS Sessions.” And [0191] “8. The NEF stores the requests from AF1 & AF3 to process at a later stage when CPU load reduces to normal levels.”); and
based on the determination ([0183], “As part of overload control, the NEF decides to implement traffic prioritization so that low priority traffic can be delayed or discarded, so ensuring the NEF is able to provide services in a stable manner to high priority services and subscribers.”) and the inspection of the first message and the second message, processing the first message and the second message ([0190] “7. Based on the recommendation received from NWDAF, the NEF processes the request from AF2 for update of QoS Sessions.” And [0191] “8. The NEF stores the requests from AF1 & AF3 to process at a later stage when CPU load reduces to normal levels.”).
However, Sharma does not specifically disclose pre-determined traffic threshold.
In an analogous art, Krishan discloses determining a pre-determined traffic threshold is exceeded ([0017], “A network exposure function (NEF) ... may become congested or overloaded, e.g., due to large amount of messages from network/UE devices.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Sharma to specify traffic threshold as taught by Krishan. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to determine congestion condition.
However, the combination of Sharma and Krishan does not teach discover a first priority marking and ... to discover a second priority marking.
In an analogous art, Hoole teaches inspecting the first message to discover a first priority marking and inspecting the second message to discover a second priority marking ([0140], “the classifier apparatus uses the extracted DSCP markings to re-sort the data traffic into Low Latency and Normal queues.” And [0141], “a listing of DSCP values includes selected DSCP values that should receive high priority.”), the first priority marking indicates a higher priority than the second priority marking ([0141], “a listing of DSCP values includes selected DSCP values that should receive high priority.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Sharma to specify DSCP as taught by Hoole. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to sort traffic according to the DSCP value.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 7/11, Hoole teaches wherein the first priority marking and the second priority marking are each a differentiated service code point (DSCP) marking ([0140], “the classifier apparatus uses the extracted DSCP markings to re-sort the data traffic into Low Latency and Normal queues.” And [0141], “a listing of DSCP values includes selected DSCP values that should receive high priority.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Sharma to specify DSCP as taught by Hoole. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to sort traffic according to the DSCP value.
Regarding claim(s) 9, Sharma teaches processing the first message and the second message comprises routing the first message to the second NF before the second message ([0190] “7. Based on the recommendation received from NWDAF, the NEF processes the request from AF2 for update of QoS Sessions.” And [0191] “8. The NEF stores the requests from AF1 & AF3 to process at a later stage when CPU load reduces to normal levels.”).
Regarding claim(s) 10, Sharma teaches processing the first message and the second message comprises queuing the first message for transmission to the second NF ahead of the second message ([0190] “7. Based on the recommendation received from NWDAF, the NEF processes the request from AF2 for update of QoS Sessions.” And [0191] “8. The NEF stores the requests from AF1 & AF3 to process at a later stage when CPU load reduces to normal levels.”).
Regarding claim(s) 12, Sharma teaches wherein the pre-determined traffic threshold is exceeded on the first NF ([0183], “The NEF detects that it is experiencing a congestion situation,” “Load=70%”).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Hoole (US 20210119941).
Regarding claim(s) 15, Hoole teaches wherein the first priority marking and the second priority marking is a differentiated service code point (DSCP) marking ([0140], “the classifier apparatus uses the extracted DSCP markings to re-sort the data traffic into Low Latency and Normal queues.” And [0141], “a listing of DSCP values includes selected DSCP values that should receive high priority.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Sharma to specify DSCP as taught by Hoole. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to sort traffic according to the DSCP value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/ZHIREN QIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2411