CTFR 18/496,541 CTFR 83742 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status This office correspondence is in response to the amendment filed on March 16, 2026. Claims 1, 6-7, 11, and 16 are amended. Claims 16-20 are newly added. Claims 1-20 are pending. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 submitted on 03/16/2026 have been considered and are moot in the new ground of rejection. The instant application discloses handling of requests in unsuccessful indirect communication. Similarly, 3GPP discloses a request with query parameters not compliant and reject the request with any resources with error code from the server side. Further, implements modification for known attributes and PATCH request and reformat. API with HTTP method result in the change of state a resource depending of the request type. When the request is sent and it experiences delay, the same request is retried and a response to the previous request is received and may lead to state changes on the resources. API specified in respective technical specification may be used for reconciling the state of resources, if the retry is attempted through a new TCP connection after a TCP connection failure. Furthermore, in a situation where all possible servers are overloaded retry mechanisms should be disabled automatically. Vilcinskas discloses data retrieval from the web to improve the communication between a user and technology used to access publicly available Internet resources. Additionally, checking whether the user's URL is correct and, if not, making modifications to the URL of the HTTP headers and cookies or adding needed HTTP headers or cookies if HTTP headers adequately configured or set by the user for proxying, allows retrying the user's requests without notifying the user. User does not need to resend the request repeatedly. The next generation proxy sees that the request was not implemented correctly and resends/retry the requests to the target again, until the satisfactory results are gathered. Therefore, after carefully reviewing the prior arts, the rejection is sustained for this claim. For at least the foregoing reasons, claims 6, and 15-16 recite similar features to claim 1. Claims 2-5, 7-14, and 18-20 each depend from one of the respective independent claims, and rendered obvious by the combination of the prior arts for at least the same reasons by virtue of their dependencies. Examiner respectfully sustains the rejections. The new prior art Joshi has been also cited with additional paragraphs to show the further elaboration in the original claim limitation. Furthermore, as it is Applicant's right to continue to claim as broadly as possible their invention, it is also the Examiner's right to continue to interpret the claim language as broadly as possible. It is the Examiner's position that the detailed functionality that allows Applicant’s invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. By the rejection above, the applicant must submit amendments to the claims in order to distinguish over the prior art use in the rejection that discloses different features of Applicant's claimed invention . Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which distinguishes over the prior art or to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. It is requested that Applicant clearly and distinctly define the claimed invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TS 29.500 V16.4.0 (2020-06) 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; 5G System; Technical Realization of Service Based Architecture; Stage 3 (Release 16). [online], 2020-07-06 hereinafter 3GPP, in view of Vilcinskas et al (US Publication 2022/0247829) hereafter Vilcinskas, in further view of Joshi et al. (US Publication 2010/0030880) hereafter Joshi . As per claim 1, 3GPP discloses an apparatus for a telecommunication network, the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions for a proxy, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the proxy at least to perform operations, the operations comprising: receiving a request and a handling instruction for the request from a requester function, forwarding the request that was received from the requestor function to a first target based on the receiving (sections 6.4.1; 6.5.3; 6.10.8; Joshi: 10-11); determining, after the forwarding the request to the first target, a success indication from the first target; handling the request according to the handling instruction that was received from the requester function, and based on the determining receive the success indication (sections 5.2.7.3; 6.5.3: the service operation is successful; Joshi: 67-68). Although, 3GPP discloses service-based architecture, he fails to expressly disclose wherein the handling instruction indicates that the proxy is to retry to forward the request when the proxy fails to receive, in response to forwarding the request, a success indication indicating that they request was successfully executed; failure to receive the success indication and handle the request based on the determining the failure indication. However, in the same field of endeavor, Vilcinskas elaborately discloses the claimed limitation of wherein the handling instruction indicates that the proxy is to retry to forward the request when the proxy fails to receive, in response to forwarding the request, a success indication indicating that they request was successfully executed; failure to receive the success indication and handle the request based on the determining the failure indication (paragraphs 44, 120, 123,125). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Vilcinskas’s teaching of content- request redirection with 3GPP. One would be motivated to handle number of failures or retires of unsuccessful requests and to redirect according their requests for successful service, thus enhancing seamless communication. Although, Vilcinskas-3GPP discloses service-based architecture with handling instruction indicates that the proxy is to retry, but fail to expressly disclose wherein the handling instruction indicates whether the proxy is or is not to retry to forward the request when the proxy fails to receive, in response to forwarding the request, a success indication indicating that they request was successfully executed; determining, after the forwarding the request to the first target, a failure to receive the success indication from the first target; handling the request according to the handling instruction that was received from the requester function and based on the determining the failure to receive the success indication. However, in the same field of endeavor, Joshi elaborately discloses the claimed limitation of wherein the handling instruction indicates whether the proxy is or is not to retry to forward the request when the proxy fails to receive, in response to forwarding the request, a success indication indicating that they request was successfully executed; determining, after the forwarding the request to the first target, a failure to receive the success indication from the first target; handling the request according to the handling instruction that was received from the requester function and based on the determining the failure to receive the success indication (paragraphs 10, 66-69). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Joshis’s teaching of failover in proxy server networks. One would be motivated to improve forwarding the request to a new server for a success delivery and seamless communication between servers and users. As per claim 2, 3GPP discloses the apparatus wherein the operation further comprises: informing the requester function of an identifier of the first target receive the success indication (sections 5.2.7.3; 6.5.3, 6.10.4). Although, 3GPP discloses service-based architecture, he fails to expressly disclose determining the failure to receive the success indication. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kairali elaborately discloses the claimed limitation of determining the failure to receive the success indication (paragraphs 44,120, 123,125). The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 2. As per claim 3, 3GPP discloses the apparatus wherein the success indication comprises an acknowledgment from the first target in response to the forwarding the request to the first target (sections 5.2.7.3; 6.10.7-6.10.8). As per claim 4, 3GPP discloses the apparatus wherein the proxy comprises a service communication proxy or a service edge protection proxy (sections 4.1, 6.2; 6.5.3). As per claim 5, 3GPP discloses the apparatus wherein at least one of the following: the requester function comprises a service consumer function, another proxy, or a client function; or the first target comprises a service producer function, a further proxy, or a server function (sections 5.2.7.3; 6.5.3, 6.10.8). Claim 6 is an Independent claim with similar limitation and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1. As per claim 7, 3GPP discloses the apparatus wherein the operations further comprise: determining receipt of an indication from the proxy indicating that the proxy receive the first success indication; forming a second request according to the first handling instruction and based on the first request; and providing, the second request that is formed and a second handling instruction to the proxy, wherein the second handling instruction is different than the first handling instructions, and wherein the second handling instruction indicates whether or not the proxy is admitted to retry to forward the second request in an instance the proxy receive a second success indication indicating that the second request was successfully executed (sections 5.2.7.3; 6.5.3, 6.10.4; 6.10.7-6.10.8). Although, 3GPP discloses service-based architecture, he fails to expressly disclose proxy indicating that the proxy has failed to receive the first success indication; the proxy is admitted to retry to forward the second request in an instance the proxy fails to receive a second success indication indicating that the second request was successfully executed (paragraphs 44,120, 123,125). The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 7. As per claim 8, 3GPP discloses the apparatus wherein the first success indication comprises an identifier of the first target (sections 5.2.7.3; 6.5.3, 6.10.4; 6.10.8). As per claim 9, 3GPP discloses the apparatus wherein the first request is a first charging request, wherein the first charging request comprises the indication that the first charging request is not a retransmission of another charging request, and wherein the forming the second request based on the first request comprises forming the second request as a second charging request comprising an indication that the second request is a retransmission of the first charging request (sections 5.2.7.3; 6.5.3, 6.10.7-6.10.8). As per claim 10, 3GPP discloses the apparatus wherein the first charging request comprises a first charging instructions, and wherein the second charging request comprises a second charging instructions (sections 5.2.3.2; 5.2.7.3; 6.5.3). As per claim 11, 3GPP discloses the apparatus wherein the requester function comprises a charging trigger function, wherein the first request is a first charging request, and wherein the first request comprises an indication indicating whether or not the first request is a retransmission of another charging request (sections 5.2.7.3; 6.5.3, 6.10.7-6.10.8). As per claim 12, 3GPP discloses the apparatus wherein at least one of the following: the requester function comprises a service consumer function, another proxy function, or a client function; or the first target comprises a service producer function, a further proxy function, or a server function (sections 4.3, 5.2.7.3; 6.2). As per claim 13, 3GPP discloses the apparatus wherein operations further comprise: receiving the first request and receiving the first handling instruction for the first request from another requester function; and wherein the providing the first request and the providing the first handling instruction are based on the first request and the first handling instruction from the another requester function (sections 5.2.7.3; 6.5.3, 6.10.4; 6.10.8). As per claim 14, Vilcinskas-3GPP discloses service-based architecture with handling instruction indicates that the proxy is to retry, but discloses the apparatus wherein the apparatus comprises a service communication proxy or a service edge protection proxy (sections 4.3, 5.2.7.3; 6.2). Claim 15 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1. Claim 16 is an Independent claim with similar limitation and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1. As per claim 17, although Vilcinskas-3GPP discloses service-based architecture with handling instruction indicates that the proxy is to retry, but in the same field of endeavor Joshi further elaborately discloses the claimed limitation of wherein the handling instruction further indicates at least one of: whether the proxy is or is not to reselect a second target for forwarding the request to the second target; or a scope from which the proxy is to reselect the second target for forwarding the request to the second target (Joshi: 10, 66-69; Vilcinskas: 44, 120, 123,125). The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 17. Claims 18-20 are listed all the same elements of claim 17. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claim 17 apply equally as well to claims 18-20 respectively . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET. 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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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. /FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/496,541 Page 2 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/496,541 Page 3 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/496,541 Page 4 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/496,541 Page 5 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/496,541 Page 6 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/496,541 Page 7 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/496,541 Page 8 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/496,541 Page 9 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/496,541 Page 10 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/496,541 Page 11 Art Unit: 2455
Prosecution Insights