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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
II. 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.
III. CLAIMS 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAIR et al (US 2021/0248025) in view of JERICHOW et al (US 2025/0126466).
Per claim 15, NAIR et al teach a method, comprising:
establishing, by a device, a communication session with a first Security Edge Protection Proxy ("SEPP") of a first network, and further with a second SEPP of a second network (paras 0010-11—establishing communication with a first SEPP with a first network and a second SEPP with a second network);
receiving, by the device, traffic from the first SEPP, wherein the traffic indicates that the second SEPP is a destination of the traffic (paras 0011, 0077, 0086-90—receiving messages from the first SEPP);
determining, by the device, that the traffic satisfies one or more error conditions (paras 0011, 0056, 0064-66 0083-87—detecting error conditions satisfied by the received messages).
NAIR et al teach the method as applied above, and reporting the error condition associated with the message to the first or second SEPP and taking corrective actions (paras 0056-59, 0071-73), yet fail to explicitly teach the limitation of “outputting, by the device, to the first SEPP, and without forwarding the traffic to the second SEPP, an indication that the traffic satisfies the one or more error conditions”. However, JERICHOW et al teach a SEPP receiving error messages from the other SEPP, the other SEPP-adjacent RI or the own adjacent Roaming Intermediary and determining if the error information received relates to itself or is for further processing by the NF (Abstract, paras 0020, 0051-54, 0065-73, 0134-139, 0151-152, 0155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of NAIR et al and JERICHOW et al for the purpose of provisioning a SEPP that receives an output of an error message, without forwarding the traffic to the second SEPP, which is well-known in the art for outputting error messages which includes error cause information.
Claims 1 and 8 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 15 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 16, NAIR et al and JERICHOW et al teach the method of claim 15, wherein determining that the traffic satisfies the one or more error conditions is performed by an intermediary gateway associated with the first SEPP (NAIR et al: paras 0022, 0029, 0045, 0047, 0056-57—error handling framework via serving gateway function via session management function and intermediaries between the two SEPPs; JERICHOW et al: paras 0150-156, 0170-171, 0190—Roaming Intermediary able to determine if the error information received relates to itself or is for further processing by the NF).
Claims 2 and 9 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 16 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 3, NAIR et al and JERICHOW et al teach the device of claim 2, wherein the first SEPP indicates, to the second SEPP, that the intermediary gateway is associated with the first SEPP (NAIR et al: paras 0010-11, 0022, 0029, 0045, 0047, 0056-57—serving gateway function via session management function and intermediaries between the two SEPPs; JERICHOW et al: paras 0004-0007, 00770, 0169-176, 0213—cSEPP “service-consuming side”, pSEPP “service-producing side”, first Roaming Intermediary associated with cSEPP).
Claim 10 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 3 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 17, NAIR et al and JERICHOW et al teach the method of claim 16, wherein the first SEPP indicates, to the second SEPP, that the intermediary gateway is associated with the first SEPP, wherein indicating that the intermediary gateway is associated with the first SEPP includes outputting one or more messages, via an N32-C interface, to the second SEPP, wherein the one or more messages include an identifier of the intermediary gateway (JERICHOW et al: paras 0015-17, 0146-147, 0173—Roaming Intermediary associated receiving SEPP via N32-C and Roaming Intermediary identity; NAIR et al: paras 0045-56, 0072, 0075-77, 0086-90—first SEPP and second SEPP, first SEPP includes one or more messages including indicator flags via an N32 interface to the second SEPP).
Claims 4 and 11 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 17 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 18, NAIR et al and JERICHOW et al teach the method of claim 15, wherein the communication session with the first SEPP and the second SEPP is associated with an N32-F interface, wherein the traffic, received from the first SEPP, is received via the N32-F interface (paras 0013-15, 0066, 0069, 0146, 0149, 0166, 0185—traffic via N32-f interface associated with sending and receiving SEPP).
Claims 5 and 12 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 18 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 20, NAIR et al and JERICHOW et al teach the method of claim 15, further comprising: maintain an error reporting policy specifying that the first SEPP should be notified regarding the one or more error conditions and that the second SEPP should not be notified regarding the one or more error conditions, wherein outputting the indication that the traffic satisfies the one or more error conditions includes outputting the indication to the first SEPP without outputting the indication to the second SEPP (NAIR et al: paras 0057, 0071-72, 0085, 0090—reporting on error conditions with the first SEPP of failure messages and error codes; JERICHOW et al: paras 0032, 0077—reporting errors to associated SEPP).
Claims 7 and 14 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 20 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
IV. CLAIMS 6, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAIR et al (US 2021/0248025) in view of JERICHOW et al (US 2022/0337597), hereafter referred to as, JERICHOW et al’597 .
Per claim 19, NAIR et al teach the method of claim 15, yet fail to explicitly teach the method further comprising: receiving a set of parameters or policies from one or more devices associated with the first network, wherein the set of parameters or policies include criteria associated with the one or more error conditions, wherein determining that the traffic satisfies the one or more error conditions includes: comparing attributes of the traffic to the criteria associated with the one or more error conditions, and determining, based on the comparing, that the attributes of the traffic satisfy the criteria associated with the one or more error conditions.
JERICHOW et al’597 teach receiving and exchanging parameters or policies from devices in the first network that are associated with error handling by comparing capabilities, detecting errors and responding with an error message (paras 0154-158, 0179-180, 0201, 0240-241, 0246, 0263). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of NAIR et al and JERICHOW et al’597 for the permitting the exchange of parameters or policies that include error condition criteria, which is well-known in the art for detecting or determining errors for responding with error messages and providing corrective actions.
Claims 6 and 13 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 19 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Conclusion
V. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: US 2021/0120524, WO 2023284623, US 2025/0338203.
VI. 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.
VII. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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 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 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.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights